Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2018, 57803-57989 [2018-24084]

Agencies

• Regulatory Information Service Center

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 57803-57989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24084]



[[Page 57803]]

Vol. 83

Friday,

No. 222

November 16, 2018

Part II





 Regulatory Information Service Center





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





Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2018

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 222 / Friday, November 16, 2018 / 
Regulatory Plan

[[Page 57804]]


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

REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER


Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2018

AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service Center.

ACTION: Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

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

SUMMARY: Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components 
of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' Executive Order 13771, 
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' January 30, 
2017, and Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 
Agenda,'' February 24, 2017. The fall editions of the Unified Agenda 
include the agency regulatory plans required by E.O. 12866, which 
identify regulatory priorities and provide additional detail about the 
most important significant regulatory actions that agencies expect to 
take in the coming year.
    In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies 
publish semiannual ``regulatory flexibility agendas'' describing 
regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant 
effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602).
    The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified 
Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all 
of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to 
publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The 
complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at 
https://www.reginfo.gov and a reduced print version can be found in the 
Federal Register. Information regarding obtaining printed copies can 
also be found on the Reginfo.gov website (or below, VI. How can users 
get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?).
    The fall 2018 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal 
Register includes the Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory flexibility 
agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas 
contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The complete fall 2018 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans 
of 28 Federal agencies and 66 Federal agency regulatory agendas.

ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General 
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about specific 
regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each 
entry.
    To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this 
publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory 
Information Service Center (MVE), U.S. General Services Administration, 
1800 F Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may 
also send comments to us by email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

I. What are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?
II. Why are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda published?
III. How are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda organized?
IV. What information appears for each entry?
V. Abbreviations
VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?
Introduction to the Fall 2018 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 Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury

Other Executive Agencies

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Railroad Retirement Board
Small Business Administration

Joint Authority

Department of Defense/General Services Administration/National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (Federal Acquisition 
Regulation)

Independent Regulatory Agencies

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Reserve System
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Surface Transportation Board

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 2018 Regulatory Plan

Agency Regulatory Plans

Cabinet Departments

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education

[[Page 57805]]

Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs

Other Executive Agencies

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
Federal Acquisition Regulation

Independent Regulatory Agencies

Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Trade Commission
National Indian Gaming Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Agency Regulatory Flexibility Agendas

Cabinet Departments

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury

Other Executive Agencies

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Committee for Purchase From the People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Railroad Retirement Board
Small Business Administration
Federal Acquisition Regulation

Independent Agencies

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Communication Commission
Federal Reserve System
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Surface Transportation Board

Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

I. What are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?

    The Regulatory Plan serves as a defining statement of the 
Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities. 
The Plan is part of the fall edition of the Unified Agenda. Each 
participating agency's regulatory plan contains: (1) A narrative 
statement of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory priorities, and, 
for the most part, (2) a description of the most important significant 
regulatory and deregulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects 
to issue in proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year. 
This edition includes the regulatory plans of 30 agencies.
    The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the 
Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared 
in the Federal Register twice each year since 1983 and has been 
available online since 1995. The complete Unified Agenda is available 
to the public at https://www.reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda 
offers flexible search tools and access to the historic Unified Agenda 
database to 1995. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda 
includes regulatory agendas from 65 Federal agencies. Agencies of the 
United States Congress are not included.
    The fall 2018 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal 
Register consists of The Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory 
flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas 
contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Printed entries display only the 
fields required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Complete agenda 
information for those entries appears, in a uniform format, in the 
online Unified Agenda at https://www.reginfo.gov.
    The following agencies have no entries for inclusion in the printed 
regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that 
appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of these agencies 
are available to the public at https://reginfo.gov.

Cabinet Departments

Department of Defense *
Department of Education *
Department of Housing and Urban Development *
Department of State
Department of Veterans Affairs *

Other Executive Agencies

Agency for International Development
American Battle Monuments Commission
Commission on Civil Rights
Corporation for National and Community Service
Council on Environmental Quality
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 
Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *
Federal Mediation Conciliation Service
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Archives and Records Administration *
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Mediation Board
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Personnel Management *
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation *
Presidio Trust
Social Security Administration *
Tennessee Valley Authority

Independent Agencies

Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission *
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission *
National Transportation Safety Board
Postal Regulatory Commission

    The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified 
Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), 
part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for 
overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and 
information resource management activities, including implementation of 
Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). The 
Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to 
the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, 
and the public.
    The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that 
will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may 
choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 
months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or 
withdrawn since the last

[[Page 57806]]

Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to 
include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or 
regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel 
matters.
    Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public 
notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They 
have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as 
accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. 
Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, 
and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their 
agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or 
after the dates they have listed. The Regulatory Plan and Unified 
Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to 
schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities 
to those regulations that appear within it.

II. Why are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda published?

    The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda helps agencies comply 
with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various 
Executive orders and other statutes.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to identify those 
rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 602). Agencies meet that requirement 
by including the information in their submissions for the Unified 
Agenda. Agencies may also indicate those regulations that they are 
reviewing as part of their periodic review of existing rules under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). Executive Order 13272, 
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' signed 
August 13, 2002 (67 FR 53461), provides additional guidance on 
compliance with the Act.

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), requires covered agencies to prepare 
an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Order 
also requires that certain agencies prepare annually a regulatory plan 
of their ``most important significant regulatory actions,'' which 
appears as part of the fall Unified Agenda. Executive Order 13497, 
signed January 30, 2009 (74 FR 6113), revoked the amendments to 
Executive Order 12866 that were contained in Executive Order 13258 and 
Executive Order 13422.

Executive Order 13771

    Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs,'' January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339) requires each agency 
to identify for elimination two prior regulations for every one new 
regulation issued, and the cost of planned regulations be prudently 
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

Executive Order 13777

    Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' 
February 24, 2017 (82 FR 12285) requires each agency to designate an 
agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO shall 
oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and 
policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory 
reforms, consistent with applicable law. The Executive Order also 
directs that each agency designate a regulatory Reform Task Force.

Executive Order 13563

    Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review,'' January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821) supplements and reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary 
regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, which 
includes the general principles of regulation and public participation, 
and orders integration and innovation in coordination across agencies; 
flexible approaches where relevant, feasible, and consistent with 
regulatory approaches; scientific integrity in any scientific or 
technological information and processes used to support the agencies' 
regulatory actions; and retrospective analysis of existing regulations.

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' August 4, 1999 (64 FR 
43255), directs agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have ``federalism 
implications'' as defined in the Order. Under the Order, an agency that 
is proposing a regulation with federalism implications, which either 
preempt State law or impose non-statutory unfunded substantial direct 
compliance costs on State and local governments, must consult with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
regulation. In addition, the agency must provide to the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget a federalism summary impact statement 
for such a regulation, which consists of a description of the extent of 
the agency's prior consultation with State and local officials, a 
summary of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need 
to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which those 
concerns have been met. As part of this effort, agencies include in 
their submissions for the Unified Agenda information on whether their 
regulatory actions may have an effect on the various levels of 
government and whether those actions have federalism implications.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, title II) 
requires agencies to prepare written assessments of the costs and 
benefits of significant regulatory actions ``that may result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any 1 year.'' The 
requirement does not apply to independent regulatory agencies, nor does 
it apply to certain subject areas excluded by section 4 of the Act. 
Affected agencies identify in the Unified Agenda those regulatory 
actions they believe are subject to title II of the Act.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' May 18, 
2001 (66 FR 28355), directs agencies to provide, to the extent 
possible, information regarding the adverse effects that agency actions 
may have on the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Under the 
Order, the agency must prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects 
to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for ``those matters 
identified as significant energy actions.'' As part of this effort, 
agencies may optionally include in their submissions for the Unified 
Agenda information on whether they have prepared or plan to prepare a 
Statement of Energy Effects for their regulatory actions.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 
104-121, title II) established a procedure for congressional review of 
rules (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), which defers, unless exempted, the 
effective date of a ``major'' rule for at least 60 days from the 
publication of the final rule in the

[[Page 57807]]

Federal Register. The Act specifies that a rule is ``major'' if it has 
resulted, or is likely to result, in an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in that Act. The 
Act provides that the Administrator of OIRA will make the final 
determination as to whether a rule is major.

III. How are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda organized?

    The Regulatory Plan appears in part II in a daily edition of the 
Federal Register. The Plan is a single document beginning with an 
introduction, followed by a table of contents, followed by each 
agency's section of the Plan. Following the Plan in the Federal 
Register, as separate parts, are the regulatory flexibility agendas for 
each agency whose agenda includes entries for rules which are likely to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities or rules that have been selected for periodic review under 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Each printed agenda 
appears as a separate part. The sections of the Plan and the parts of 
the Unified Agenda are organized alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet 
departments; other executive agencies; the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation, a joint authority (Agenda only); and independent regulatory 
agencies. Agencies may in turn be divided into subagencies. Each 
printed agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's 
printed entries that follow. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains 
a preamble providing information specific to that agency. Each printed 
agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's printed 
entries that follow.
    Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of 
regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the 
agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory 
actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing 
information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's 
regulatory and deregulatory actions.
    The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all 
participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda 
has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the 
particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad 
flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest 
to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To 
see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the 
agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
    Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking 
stages. The rulemaking stages are:
    1. Prerule Stage--actions agencies will undertake to determine 
whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.
    2. Proposed Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking 
process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the 
next step.
    3. Final Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish a 
final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as 
the next step.
    4. Long-Term Actions--items under development but for which the 
agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months 
after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the 
entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.
    5. Completed Actions--actions or reviews the agency has completed 
or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also 
includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the 
Agenda.
    Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication 
cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for 
which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication 
cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by 
Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the 
Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-
looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the 
Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To 
further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified 
Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are 
reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the 
first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search 
function is provided on https://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,

[[Page 57808]]

public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities. The definition of an ``economically significant'' rule is 
similar but not identical to the definition of a ``major'' rule under 5 
U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)

(2) Other Significant

    A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered 
Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency 
anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that 
are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be 
included in the agency's regulatory plan.

(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant

    A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither 
Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/
Administrative/Other.

(4) Routine and Frequent

    A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring 
application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations 
and that does not alter the body of the regulation.

(5) Informational/Administrative/Other

    A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency 
matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate 
but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public 
of the activity.
    Major--whether the rule is ``major'' under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 
104-121) because it has resulted or is likely to result in an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria 
specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will make the final 
determination as to whether a rule is major.
    Unfunded Mandates--whether the rule is covered by section 202 of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The Act 
requires that, before issuing an NPRM likely to result in a mandate 
that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than 
$100 million in 1 year, agencies, other than independent regulatory 
agencies, shall prepare a written statement containing an assessment of 
the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.
    Legal Authority--the section(s) of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 
or Public Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order (E.O.) that authorize(s) 
the regulatory action. Agencies may provide popular name references to 
laws in addition to these citations.
    CFR Citation--the section(s) of the Code of Federal Regulations 
that will be affected by the action.
    Legal Deadline--whether the action is subject to a statutory or 
judicial deadline, the date of that deadline, and whether the deadline 
pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other action.
    Abstract--a brief description of the problem the regulation will 
address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available, 
alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and 
potential costs and benefits of the action.
    Timetable--the dates and citations (if available) for all past 
steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the 
regulatory action. A date displayed in the form 12/00/19 means the 
agency is predicting the month and year the action will take place but 
not the day it will occur. In some instances, agencies may indicate 
what the next action will be, but the date of that action is ``To Be 
Determined.'' ``Next Action Undetermined'' indicates the agency does 
not know what action it will take next.
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required--whether an analysis is 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
because the rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act.
    Small Entities Affected--the types of small entities (businesses, 
governmental jurisdictions, or organizations) on which the rulemaking 
action is likely to have an impact as defined by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Some agencies have chosen to indicate likely effects 
on small entities even though they believe that a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis will not be required.
    Government Levels Affected--whether the action is expected to 
affect levels of government and, if so, whether the governments are 
State, local, tribal, or Federal.
    International Impacts--whether the regulation is expected to have 
international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of 
interest to the Nation's international trading partners.
    Federalism--whether the action has ``federalism implications'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13132. This term refers to actions ``that 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' 
Independent regulatory agencies are not required to supply this 
information.
    Included in the Regulatory Plan--whether the rulemaking was 
included in the agency's current regulatory plan published in fall 
2017.
    Agency Contact--the name and phone number of at least one person in 
the agency who is knowledgeable about the rulemaking action. The agency 
may also provide the title, address, fax number, email address, and TDD 
for each agency contact.
    Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
    RIN Information URL--the internet address of a site that provides 
more information about the entry.
    Public Comment URL--the internet address of a site that will accept 
public comments on the entry. Alternatively, timely public comments may 
be submitted at the Governmentwide e-rulemaking site, https://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.

[[Page 57809]]

    Risks--a description of the magnitude of the risk the action 
addresses, the amount by which the agency expects the action to reduce 
this risk, and the relation of the risk and this risk reduction effort 
to other risks and risk reduction efforts within the agency's 
jurisdiction.

V. Abbreviations

    The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
    ANPRM--An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary 
notice, published in the Federal Register, announcing that an agency is 
considering a regulatory action. An agency may issue an ANPRM before it 
develops a detailed proposed rule. An ANPRM describes the general area 
that may be subject to regulation and usually asks for public comment 
on the issues and options being discussed. An ANPRM is issued only when 
an agency believes it needs to gather more information before 
proceeding to a notice of proposed rulemaking.
    CFR--The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual codification of 
the general and permanent regulations published in the Federal Register 
by the agencies of the Federal Government. The Code is divided into 50 
titles, each title covering a broad area subject to Federal regulation. 
The CFR is keyed to and kept up to date by the daily issues of the 
Federal Register.
    E.O.--An Executive order is a directive from the President to 
Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority. 
Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and in title 3 
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    FR--The Federal Register is a daily Federal Government publication 
that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential documents, 
all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and other 
official documents issued by Federal agencies.
    FY--The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
     NPRM--A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the document an 
agency issues and publishes in the Federal Register that describes and 
solicits public comments on a proposed regulatory action. Under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), an NPRM must include, at a 
minimum: A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public 
rulemaking proceeding;
     A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is 
proposed; and Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a 
description of the subjects and issues involved.
    PL (or Pub. L.)--A public law is a law passed by Congress and 
signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general 
applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons 
or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in 
sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example, 
Public Law 112-4 is the fourth public law of the 112th Congress.
    RFA--A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is a description and 
analysis of the impact of a rule on small entities, including small 
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain small not-
for-profit organizations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.) requires each agency to prepare an initial RFA for public 
comment when it is required to publish an NPRM and to make available a 
final RFA when the final rule is published, unless the agency head 
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    RIN--The Regulation Identifier Number is assigned by the Regulatory 
Information Service Center to identify each regulatory action listed in 
the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda, as directed by Executive 
Order 12866 (section 4(b)). Additionally, OMB has asked agencies to 
include RINs in the headings of their Rule and Proposed Rule documents 
when publishing them in the Federal Register, to make it easier for the 
public and agency officials to track the publication history of 
regulatory actions throughout their development.
    Seq. No.--The sequence number identifies the location of an entry 
in the printed edition of the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda. 
Note that a specific regulatory action will have the same RIN 
throughout its development but will generally have different sequence 
numbers if it appears in different printed editions of the Unified 
Agenda. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda.
    U.S.C.--The United States Code is a consolidation and codification 
of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The U.S.C. is 
divided into 50 titles, each title covering a broad area of Federal 
law.

VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?

    Copies of the Federal Register issue containing the printed edition 
of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda (agency regulatory 
flexibility agendas) are available from the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Telephone: (202) 512-1800 or 1-866-512-1800 
(toll-free).
    Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly 
from the agency or may be found on the agency's website. Please contact 
the particular agency for further information.
    All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are 
available in electronic form at https://reginfo.gov, along with flexible 
search tools.
    The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys website contains copies 
of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the 
Federal Register. These documents are available at https://www.fdsys.gov.

    Dated: October 15, 2018.
John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.

BILLING CODE 6820-27-P

Introduction to the Fall 2018 Regulatory Plan

    Regulatory reform is a cornerstone of President Trump's agenda for 
economic growth. This Plan reaffirms the principles of individual 
liberty and limited government essential to reform. It also highlights 
the success of ongoing efforts, initiatives for improving 
accountability, and the promotion of good regulatory practices.
    Across the Trump Administration, real regulatory reform is 
underway. As the agency examples throughout the Plan demonstrate, the 
benefits of a more rational regulatory system are felt far and wide and 
create opportunities for economic growth and development. Farmers can 
more productively use their land. Small businesses can hire more 
workers and provide more affordable healthcare. Innovators will be able 
to pursue advances in autonomous vehicles, drones, and commercial space 
exploration. Veterans enjoy expanded access to doctors through a 
telehealth program. Infrastructure can be improved more quickly with 
streamlined permitting requirements. These reforms and many others make 
life better for all Americans through lower consumer prices, more jobs, 
and, in the long run, improvements in well-being that result from the 
advance of innovative new products and services.
    Private choices of individuals and businesses should generally 
prevail in a free society. Yet in modern times, the expansion of the 
administrative state has placed undue burdens on the public, impeding 
economic growth, technological innovation, and consumer choice. This 
Administration has spearheaded an unprecedented effort to

[[Page 57810]]

restore appropriate checks on the regulatory state, ensuring that 
agencies act within the boundaries of the law and in a manner that 
yields the greatest benefits to the American people while imposing the 
fewest burdens. Our policies focus on restoring political 
accountability and protecting the constitutional values of due process 
and fair notice. Government should respect the private decisions of 
individuals and businesses unless a compelling need can be shown for 
intervention, a longstanding principle affirmed in Executive Order 
12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' September 30, 1993). We 
approach regulation with humility, trusting Americans to direct their 
energy and capital productively and to reap the benefits that result 
from a free exchange of goods and ideas.
    The Administration's regulatory agenda involves structural reforms 
as well as the practical work of eliminating and revising regulations. 
Agencies continue to advance the health and safety mandates that 
Congress has entrusted to them and to revamp vital programs to increase 
their effectiveness. At the same time, agencies are revising or 
rescinding regulations that fail to address real-world problems, that 
are needlessly burdensome, and that prevent Americans from advancing 
innovative solutions. Our reform efforts emphasize the rule of law, 
respect for the Constitution's separation of powers, and the limits of 
agency authority.

Reducing Regulatory Burdens

    At the outset, President Trump set forth a general mandate for 
regulatory reform across the Administration. Consistent with legal 
obligations, Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' January 30, 2017) directs a two-fold 
approach to reform: It requires that agencies eliminate two regulations 
for each new significant regulation and also requires that agencies 
offset any new regulatory costs. By requiring a reduction in the number 
of regulations, the order incentivizes agencies to identify regulations 
and guidance documents that do not provide sufficient benefits to the 
public. Agencies have reduced or eliminated unnecessary requirements 
large and small. For the first time in decades, Federal agencies have 
decreased new regulatory costs, while continuing to pursue important 
regulatory priorities.
    Agencies have achieved historic and meaningful regulatory reform in 
the first two years.
     For fiscal year 2018, agencies achieved $23 billion in net 
regulatory cost savings across the government.
     Agencies issued 176 deregulatory actions (57 of which are 
significant deregulatory actions) and 14 significant regulatory 
actions.
     These results expand and build upon the success of the 
Administration's first year, for a total regulatory cost reduction of 
$33 billion.
    In addition to these impressive results, the agencies project $18 
billion in regulatory cost savings for 2019. In addition, the ``Safer 
Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule'' revises the greenhouse gas 
standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for passenger 
cars and light trucks. The Department of Transportation and the 
Environmental Protection Agency have proposed a range of options that 
are projected to save between $120 and $340 billion in regulatory costs 
and anticipate completion of the rule in fiscal year 2019. The momentum 
for reform continues to accelerate as agencies complete substantial 
deregulatory actions.

Promoting the Rule of Law: Political Accountability, Guidance 
Documents, and Respecting Congress' Lawmaking Power

    The Administration's regulatory reform is committed to the rule of 
law, understood as respect for the constitutional structure as well as 
the specific laws enacted by Congress. The Constitution establishes a 
relatively simple framework for regulation. Congress is vested with 
limited and enumerated legislative powers, which it may use to set 
regulatory policy and establish the authority of agencies to issue 
regulations. The President is vested with the executive power, which 
includes overseeing and directing administration of the laws. Within 
the framework and directions established by Congress, political 
accountability for regulatory policy depends on presidential 
responsibility and control. As Alexander Hamilton explained, ``Energy 
in the executive is a leading character of good government. It is 
essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: 
It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws.'' 
The Federalist No. 70.
    The annual Regulatory Plan has provided a longstanding form of 
presidential accountability for the regulatory policy of federal 
agencies as well as for the specific regulatory actions planned for the 
forthcoming year. Through the process of reviewing the Plan and Unified 
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, OIRA helps agencies to 
direct administrative action consistent with presidential priorities. 
Agency heads explain their priorities through the narrative of the 
Regulatory Plan and list specific deregulatory and regulatory actions 
expected to be completed in the coming year. This process provides an 
important gatekeeping role to ensure agencies pursue only those actions 
consistent with law and that have the support of the heads of agencies 
and ultimately the President. Likewise, review of draft regulatory 
actions through Executive Order 12866 advances good regulatory policy 
consistent with legal requirements, sound analysis, and presidential 
priorities.
    Faithful execution of the laws also includes respect for the 
lawmaking power of Congress. Although Congress often confers 
substantial discretion on agencies, OIRA works with agencies to limit 
expansive interpretations of executive authority and to regulate within 
the boundaries of the law. Carefully examining statutory authority and 
keeping agencies within the limits set by Congress protects against 
executive agencies exercising the legislative power. OIRA also works 
with agencies to ensure compliance with the Administrative Procedure 
Act. The requirements of public notice and opportunity for comment 
bolster the legitimacy of agency action and can provide refinements 
that improve the ultimate policy chosen by an agency.
    Moreover, OIRA is looking closely at existing statutory 
requirements for limiting administrative excess across federal 
agencies, including within the historically independent agencies. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, all federal agencies must comply with 
specific requirements before collecting information from the public. 
OIRA plays an important role in reviewing forms that collect 
information, verifying that they have practical utility and are as 
minimally burdensome as possible. Reduction of paperwork burdens plays 
an important role in eliminating unnecessary, duplicative, or 
conflicting regulatory requirements.
    The Administration's commitment to the rule of law finds expression 
in other initiatives, such as restoring the proper use of guidance 
documents. While guidance documents may provide needed clarification of 
existing legal obligations, they have sometimes been stretched to 
impose new obligations. OIRA and the White House Counsel's Office have 
repeatedly affirmed the importance of due process and fair notice in 
regulatory policy and worked closely with agencies to prevent the 
misuse of guidance documents. Agencies should not surprise the public

[[Page 57811]]

with new requirements through an informal memo, speech, or blog post. 
When agencies impose new regulatory obligations, they must follow the 
appropriate administrative procedures.
    Through the review process for significant guidance documents, OIRA 
has identified proposed agency guidance that should be undertaken only 
through notice and comment rulemaking. Some agencies have withdrawn 
expansive guidance from the previous administration and are replacing 
it with rulemaking, rather than simply a revised guidance document. 
Rulemaking undoubtedly requires more agency time and resources; 
however, it also provides fair notice and allows input from the public, 
which ultimately results in more lawful and predictable regulatory 
policy.
    Other agencies are also taking important steps. The Department of 
Justice clarified that guidance documents would not be used for 
enforcement purposes. Several agencies subsequently followed this 
principle, including a group of historically independent financial 
regulatory agencies. Other agencies are in the process of revising 
their guidance policies to promote greater accountability in the 
development, promulgation, and access to guidance documents.
    Ensuring the proper use of guidance documents; eliminating outdated 
or stale guidance; requiring internal checks that enhance 
accountability for guidance; and providing greater transparency and 
online access to guidance documents are steps forward in promoting 
sound regulatory policy across the federal government. OIRA will 
continue to work with agencies to improve and refine their guidance 
practices.

Good Regulatory Practices: Transparency, Coordination, and Analysis

    Regulatory reform in the Trump Administration includes the 
promotion and expansion of longstanding good regulatory practices such 
as transparency, coordination, and cost-benefit analysis. These 
practices improve regulatory outcomes irrespective of the policy 
preferences of an agency or administration.
    Transparency in the regulatory process provides one of the most 
important checks on administrative agencies by allowing the public to 
have notice of regulatory actions and opportunities for comment in the 
administrative process. This Administration has taken specific steps to 
improve transparency.
    For example, OIRA collaborates with agencies to make the Unified 
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions a more accurate 
reflection of what agencies plan to pursue in the coming year. Agencies 
must make every effort to include actions they plan to pursue, because 
if an item is not on the Agenda, under Executive Order 13771, an agency 
cannot move forward unless it obtains a waiver or the action is 
required by law. A clear and accurate Agenda helps avoid unfair 
surprise and achieves greater predictability of upcoming actions.
    This Administration has also published the so-called ``Inactive 
List,'' a list of regulations contemplated by agencies, but previously 
not made public in the Agenda. Agencies continue to review these lists 
and remove actions they no longer plan to pursue. Publication of the 
list promotes agency accountability for all regulatory actions under 
consideration and a more accurate picture of regulations in the 
pipeline.
    Furthermore, in the process of implementing the historic reforms of 
Executive Order 13771, OIRA published detailed information about the 
cost allowances, cost savings, and specific actions counted as 
regulatory and deregulatory. OIRA issued early guidance on how the 
Executive Order would be implemented. Drawing from the successful 
experience of similar deregulatory programs in the United Kingdom and 
Canada, the guidance explained that even small deregulatory actions 
would be counted in order to incentivize agencies to eliminate 
unnecessary regulatory burdens of all sizes. This transparency allows 
the public to understand the accounting methodology and the choices 
made to encourage the greatest possible reform efforts from the 
agencies.
    Coordination is an important component of the OIRA regulatory 
review process. Coordination facilitates consistent application of 
presidential priorities, legal interpretation, and regulatory policy 
across different agencies. Centralized review allows the Administration 
to advance broader principles, such as concern for the rule of law, due 
process, and fair notice, as well as to reduce regulatory costs across 
the board.
    Through the review process, agencies and senior officials within 
the Executive Office of the President have an opportunity to comment on 
draft regulations. These reviewers flag policy concerns or problems of 
duplication, inconsistency, and inefficiency. Such coordination allows 
for careful consideration of competing priorities and how they should 
be balanced across the Executive Branch. The review process also allows 
for coordination in other contexts, such as when one agency's rule 
implicates the programs or legal authorities of another. Interagency 
review can ameliorate problems arising from overlapping statutory 
mandates. Review can also strengthen the legal foundation and the 
supporting analysis of rules--bolstering their effectiveness and also 
their ability to survive legal challenge.
    The historically independent agencies sometimes participate in the 
review process when a regulation raises issues that implicate their 
jurisdiction. Because these agencies are not generally subject to other 
White House coordination mechanisms, the review process provides an 
opportunity to ensure greater consistency across all agencies within 
the Executive Branch.
    Finally, cost-benefit analysis must justify the need for 
regulation. As Executive Order 12866 recognizes, private choices of 
individuals and businesses are the baseline in the American system of 
government. To warrant departure from this baseline, regulatory actions 
must be consistent with statutory authority and should have benefits 
that substantially exceed costs.
    Careful analysis that accurately captures both the benefits and 
costs of regulation is essential to achieving good regulatory policy. 
Consideration of alternatives and an assessment of their costs and 
benefits serves an important function by providing transparency for 
regulatory decisions and information that can inform public comment on 
the impact of regulatory alternatives before a rule is finalized. While 
anticipating and quantifying the costs and benefits of regulations pose 
challenges in some contexts, OIRA will continue to work closely with 
agencies to improve their analyses.
    One of the practical consequences of Executive Order 13771 is that 
agencies have a new and meaningful incentive to engage in retrospective 
review of regulations, which President Obama called for in Executive 
Order 13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' January 
18, 2011). When issuing a rule, an agency can only predict the costs 
and benefits. Periodically reviewing the actual costs and benefits of 
regulations allows agencies to modify rules for greater effectiveness 
or to repeal rules that are unnecessary or counterproductive.

[[Page 57812]]

Review of Tax Regulations Under Executive Order 12866

    Administration-wide regulatory reform efforts have been coupled 
with targeted reforms in specific high-burden areas. For example, the 
President issued Executive Order 13789 (``Identifying and Reducing Tax 
Regulatory Burdens,'' April 21, 2017), directing the Department of the 
Treasury to identify and reduce tax regulatory burdens because 
America's ``Federal tax system should be simple, fair, efficient, and 
pro-growth.'' In addition to other measures, the President called for a 
review of whether tax regulations should go through the centralized 
OIRA regulatory review process. Tax regulations were previously exempt 
from this process, in part contributing to the problem of burdensome, 
complicated, and inefficient tax regulatory policy identified by 
Executive Order 13789.
    After conducting this review, the Office of Management and Budget 
and the Department of the Treasury signed a Memorandum of Agreement 
(MOA), ``Review of Tax Regulations under Executive Order 12866'' (April 
11, 2018). The MOA recognizes the importance of presidential oversight 
and accountability, particularly where tax regulations reflect the 
exercise of discretion, raise important legal or policy questions, or 
impose substantial costs on the public. Tax regulations uniquely impact 
all Americans and have significant consequences for investment, 
economic growth, and innovation. The OIRA review process provides an 
important check to ensure that tax regulations are consistent with the 
President's priorities for a ``simple, fair, efficient, and pro-
growth'' tax system.
    The historic reforms enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) 
require Treasury to issue a number of regulations. The MOA provides for 
the possibility of expedited review of TCJA regulations in order to 
provide timely guidance and information to the public. Over the past 
few months, Treasury and OIRA have worked closely together to improve 
tax regulations, ensuring that regulations are consistent with law, 
demonstrate benefits that exceed the costs, and impose the fewest 
possible burdens on the public. The review process encourages greater 
transparency of the impacts of the regulation, highlighting where the 
agency exercises discretion and the anticipated burdens placed on the 
public, including paperwork and other compliance burdens. When Treasury 
provides this information in a proposed rule, the public has a more 
informed basis from which to comment on the rule and share information 
about the consequences of particular regulatory choices. Moreover, the 
review process facilitates coordination with other agencies to avoid 
conflict with other administration priorities.
    The improvement of tax regulations demonstrates a specific success 
in the Administration's regulatory reform agenda. It also reaffirms the 
value of the OIRA centralized review process for promoting presidential 
priorities and good regulatory practices such as transparency, 
coordination, and robust cost-benefit analysis.

Conclusion

    Consistent with its longstanding commitment to the principles of 
good regulatory policy, OIRA works closely with agencies to advance 
regulatory policy that is consistent with law and the President's 
priorities and yields substantial net benefits for the public. The 
first two years of the Administration have produced unparalleled 
reform, and we project even more significant results in the coming 
year.

Neomi Rao,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget

                                            Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  NOP; Strengthening                0581-AD09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Organic Enforcement.
2.............................  National Bioengineered            0581-AD54  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Food Disclosure Standard.
3.............................  Animal Welfare;                   0579-AE35  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Amendments to Licensing
                                 Provisions and to
                                 Requirements for Dogs.
4.............................  Importation, Interstate           0579-AE47  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Movement, and Release
                                 Into the Environment of
                                 Certain Genetically
                                 Engineered Organisms.
5.............................  Supplemental Nutrition            0584-AE57  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance Program:
                                 Requirements for Able-
                                 Bodied Adults Without
                                 Dependents.
6.............................  Providing Regulatory              0584-AE61  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Flexibility for
                                 Retailers in the
                                 Supplemental Nutrition
                                 Assistance Program
                                 (SNAP).
7.............................  Revision of Categorical           0584-AE62  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Eligibility in the
                                 Supplemental Nutrition
                                 Assistance Program
                                 (SNAP).
8.............................  Reform Provisions for the         0584-AE64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Supplemental Nutrition
                                 Assistance Program's
                                 Quality Control System.
9.............................  Child Nutrition Programs:         0584-AE53  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Flexibilities for Milk,
                                 Whole Grains, and Sodium
                                 Requirements.
10............................  Egg Products Inspection           0583-AC58  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Regulations.
11............................  Modernization of Swine            0583-AD62  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Slaughter Inspection.
12............................  Update and Clarification          0596-AD32  Prerule Stage.
                                 of the Locatable
                                 Minerals Regulations.
13............................  Oil and Gas Resource              0596-AD33  Prerule Stage.
                                 Revision.
14............................  Servicing Regulation for          0572-AC41  Final Rule Stage.
                                 the Rural Utilities
                                 Service (RUS)
                                 Telecommunications
                                 Programs.
15............................  oneRD Guaranteed Loan             0572-AC43  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57813]]


                                             Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16............................  Revisions to the Export           0694-AF47  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Administration
                                 Regulations: Control of
                                 Firearms and Related
                                 Articles the President
                                 Determines No Longer
                                 Warrant Control Under
                                 the United States
                                 Munitions List.
17............................  Magnuson-Stevens Act;             0648-BH73  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Fishery Management
                                 Councils; Financial
                                 Disclosure and Recusal.
18............................  Magnuson-Stevens                  0648-BH87  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Fisheries Conservation
                                 and Management Act;
                                 Traceability Information
                                 Program for Seafood.
19............................  Taking and Importing              0648-BB38  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Marine Mammals: Taking
                                 Marine Mammals
                                 Incidental to
                                 Geophysical Surveys
                                 Related to Oil and Gas
                                 Activities in the Gulf
                                 of Mexico.
20............................  Commerce Trusted Trader           0648-BG51  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program.
21............................  Setting and Adjusting             0651-AD31  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Patent Fees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22............................  Contractor Purchasing             0750-AJ48  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 System Review Threshold
                                 (DFARS Case 2017-D038).
23............................  Brand Name or Equal               0750-AJ50  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (DFARS Case 2017-D040).
24............................  Submission of Summary             0750-AJ42  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Subcontract Report
                                 (DFARS Case 2017-D005).
25............................  Regulatory Program of the         0710-AA75  Prerule Stage.
                                 Army Corps of Engineers
                                 Tribal Consultation and
                                 National Historic
                                 Preservation Act
                                 compliance.
26............................  Natural Disaster                  0710-AA78  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Procedures:
                                 Preparedness, Response,
                                 and Recovery Activities
                                 of the Corps of
                                 Engineers.
27............................  Definition of ``Waters of         0710-AA80  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 the United States''.
28............................  Compensatory Mitigation           0710-AA83  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Losses of Aquatic
                                 Resources--Review and
                                 Approval of Mitigation
                                 Banks and In-Lieu Fee
                                 Programs.
29............................  Modification of                   0710-AA84  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Nationwide Permits.
30............................  Policy for Domestic,              0710-AA72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Municipal, and
                                 Industrial Water Supply
                                 Uses of Reservoir
                                 Projects Operated by the
                                 Department of the Army,
                                 U.S. Army Corps of
                                 Engineers.
31............................  Establishment of TRICARE          0720-AB70  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Select and Other TRICARE
                                 Reforms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1870-AA14  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Sex in
                                 Education Programs or
                                 Activities Receiving
                                 Federal Financial
                                 Assistance.
33............................  State Authorization and           1840-AD36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Related Issues.
34............................  Accreditation and Related         1840-AD37  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Issues.
35............................  Ensuring Student Access           1840-AD38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 to High Quality and
                                 Innovative Postsecondary
                                 Educational Programs.
36............................  Eligibility of Faith-             1840-AD40  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Based Entities and
                                 Activities-Title IV
                                 Programs.
37............................  TEACH Grants.............         1840-AD44  Proposed Rule Stage.
38............................  Institutional                     1840-AD26  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Accountability.
39............................  Program Integrity;                1840-AD31  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Gainful Employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Residential Conventional
                                 Cooking Products.
41............................  Procedures,                       1904-AD38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Interpretations, and
                                 Policies for
                                 Consideration of New or
                                 Revised Energy
                                 Conservation Standards
                                 for Consumer Products.
42............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AE26  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Program: Definition for
                                 General Service Lamps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43............................  HIPAA Privacy: Request            0945-AA00  Prerule Stage.
                                 for Information on
                                 Changes to Support, and
                                 Remove Barriers to,
                                 Coordinated Care.
44............................  HIPAA Privacy Rule:               0945-AA09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Presumption of Good
                                 Faith of Health Care
                                 Providers.
45............................  Protecting Statutory              0945-AA10  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Conscience Rights in
                                 Health Care; Delegations
                                 of Authority.

[[Page 57814]]

 
46............................  Revising Outdated                 0930-AA27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements for Opioid
                                 Treatment Providers
                                 (OTPS).
47............................  Coordinating Care and             0930-AA32  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Information Sharing in
                                 the Treatment of
                                 Substance Use Disorders.
48............................  Food Standards: General           0910-AC54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Principles and Food
                                 Standards Modernization
                                 (Reopening of Comment
                                 Period).
49............................  Mammography Quality               0910-AH04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards Act;
                                 Amendments to Part 900
                                 Regulations.
50............................  Medical Device De Novo            0910-AH53  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Classification Process.
51............................  Nonprescription Drug              0910-AH62  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Product With an
                                 Additional Condition for
                                 Nonprescription Use.
52............................  Format and Content of             0910-AH89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Reports Intended to
                                 Demonstrate Substantial
                                 Equivalence.
53............................  Nutrient Content Claims,          0910-AI13  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Definition of Term:
                                 Healthy.
54............................  Compliance With Statutory         0937-AA07  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program Integrity
                                 Requirements.
55............................  Requirements for Long-            0938-AT36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Term Care Facilities:
                                 Regulatory Provisions to
                                 Promote Program
                                 Efficiency,
                                 Transparency, and Burden
                                 Reduction (CMS-3347-P).
56............................  CY 2020 Notice of Benefit         0938-AT37  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Payment Parameters
                                 (CMS-9926-P).
57............................  Exchange Program                  0938-AT53  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Integrity (CMS-9922-P).
58............................  Policy and Technical              0938-AT59  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Changes to the Medicare
                                 Advantage and the
                                 Medicare Prescription
                                 Drug Benefit Programs
                                 for Contract Year 2020
                                 (CMS-4185-P).
59............................  Modernizing and                   0938-AT64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Clarifying the Physician
                                 Self-Referral
                                 Regulations (CMS-1720-P).
60............................  Adoption and Foster Care          0970-AC72  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Analysis and Reporting
                                 System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61............................  EB-5 Immigrant Investor           1615-AC26  Prerule Stage.
                                 Program Realignment.
62............................  Inadmissibility on Public         1615-AA22  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Charge Grounds.
63............................  Registration Requirement          1615-AB71  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Petitioners Seeking
                                 To File H-1B Petitions
                                 on Behalf of Cap Subject
                                 Aliens.
64............................  EB-5 Immigrant Investor           1615-AC11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Regional Center Program.
65............................  Strengthening the H-1B            1615-AC13  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Nonimmigrant Visa
                                 Classification Program.
66............................  U.S. Citizenship and              1615-AC14  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Immigration Services
                                 Biometrics Collection
                                 for Consistent,
                                 Efficient, and Effective
                                 Operations.
67............................  Removing H-4 Dependent            1615-AC15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Spouses from the Class
                                 of Aliens Eligible for
                                 Employment Authorization.
68............................  Electronic Processing of          1615-AC20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Immigration Benefit
                                 Requests.
69............................  Updating Adjustment of            1615-AC22  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Status Procedures for
                                 More Efficient
                                 Processing and Immigrant
                                 Visa Usage.
70............................  Improvements to the               1615-AC23  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Medical Certification
                                 for Disability
                                 Exceptions Processing.
71............................  Credible Fear Reform.....         1615-AC24  Proposed Rule Stage.
72............................  Employment Authorization          1615-AC27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Documents for Asylum
                                 Applicants.
73............................  EB-5 Immigrant Investor           1615-AC07  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program Modernization.
74............................  Removal of Certain                1625-AC48  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 International Convention
                                 on Standards of
                                 Training, Certification
                                 and Watchkeeping for
                                 Seafarers, 1978, as
                                 Amended (STCW) Training
                                 Requirements.
75............................  TWIC Reader Requirements;         1625-AC47  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Delay of Effective Date.
76............................  Collection of Biometric           1651-AB12  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Data From Aliens Upon
                                 Entry To and Exit From
                                 the United States.
77............................  Implementation of the             1651-AB14  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Electronic System for
                                 Travel Authorization
                                 (ESTA) at U.S. Land
                                 Borders--Automation of
                                 CBP Form I-94W.
78............................  Vetting of Certain                1652-AA69  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Surface Transportation
                                 Employees.
79............................  Amending Vetting                  1652-AA70  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements for
                                 Employees With Access to
                                 a Security
                                 Identification Display
                                 Area (SIDA).
80............................  Protection of Sensitive           1652-AA08  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Security Information.
81............................  Flight Training for               1652-AA35  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Aliens and Other
                                 Designated Individuals;
                                 Security Awareness
                                 Training for Flight
                                 School Employees.
82............................  Security Training for             1652-AA55  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Surface Transportation
                                 Employees.
83............................  Apprehension, Processing,         1653-AA75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Care and Custody of
                                 Alien Minors and
                                 Unaccompanied Alien
                                 Children.
84............................  Establishing a Maximum            1653-AA78  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Period of Authorized
                                 Stay for F-1 and Other
                                 Nonimmigrants.
85............................  Adjusting Program Fees            1653-AA74  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for the Student and
                                 Exchange Visitor Program.
86............................  Factors Considered When           1660-AA83  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Evaluating a Governor's
                                 Request for Individual
                                 Assistance for a Major
                                 Disaster.
87............................  Update to FEMA's                  1660-AA91  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Regulations on
                                 Rulemaking Procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57815]]


                                   Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88............................  Enhancing and                     2501-AD87  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Streamlining the
                                 Implementation of
                                 ``Section 3''
                                 Requirements for
                                 Creating Economic
                                 Opportunities for Low-
                                 and Very Low-Income
                                 Persons and Eligible
                                 Businesses.
89............................  Project Approval for              2502-AJ30  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Single Family
                                 Condominium (FR-5715).
90............................  Affirmatively Furthering          2529-AA97  Prerule Stage.
                                 Fair Housing
                                 Streamlining and
                                 Enhancement (FR-6123).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Department of the Interior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.            Rulemaking stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91............................  Revisions to the                  1082-AA01  Proposed Rule Stage
                                 Requirements for
                                 Exploratory Drilling on
                                 the Arctic Outer
                                 Continental Shelf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92............................  Bump-Stock-Type Devices..         1140-AA52  Final Rule Stage.
93............................  Implementation of the             1117-AB45  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Provision of the
                                 Comprehensive Addiction
                                 and Recovery Act of 2016
                                 Relating to the Partial
                                 Filling of Prescriptions
                                 for Schedule II
                                 Controlled Substances.
94............................  Procedures for Asylum....         1125-AA87  Proposed Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Department of Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95............................  Defining and Delimiting           1235-AA20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 the Exemptions for
                                 Executive,
                                 Administrative,
                                 Professional, Outside
                                 Sales and Computer
                                 Employees.
96............................  Regular and Basic Rates           1235-AA24  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Fair Labor
                                 Standards Act.
97............................  Joint Employment Under            1235-AA26  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 the Fair Labor Standards
                                 Act.
98............................  Labor Certification               1205-AB89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Process for Temporary
                                 Agricultural Employment
                                 in the United States (H-
                                 2A workers).
99............................  Health Reimbursement              1210-AB87  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Arrangements and Other
                                 Account-Based Group
                                 Health Plans.
100...........................  Definition of an                  1210-AB88  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 ``Employer'' Under
                                 Section 3(5) of ERISA--
                                 Association Retirement
                                 Plans and Other Multiple
                                 Employer Plans.
101...........................  Standards Improvement             1218-AC67  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Project IV.
102...........................  Tracking of Workplace             1218-AD17  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Injuries and Illnesses.
103...........................  Occupational Exposure to          1218-AD21  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Beryllium and Beryllium
                                 Compounds in
                                 Construction and
                                 Shipyard Sectors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104...........................  Processing Buy America            2105-AE79  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Waivers Based on Non
                                 availability.
105...........................  Registration and Marking          2120-AK82  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements for Small
                                 Unmanned Aircraft.
106...........................  Removing Regulatory               2127-AM00  Prerule Stage.
                                 Barriers for Automated
                                 Driving Systems.
107...........................  The Safer Affordable Fuel-        2127-AL76  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Efficient (SAFE)
                                 Vehicles Rule for Model
                                 Years 2021-2026
                                 Passenger Cars and Light
                                 Trucks.
108...........................  Passenger Equipment               2130-AC46  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Safety Standards
                                 Amendments.
109...........................  Pipeline Safety: Class            2137-AF29  Prerule Stage.
                                 Location Requirements.
110...........................  Hazardous Materials:              2137-AF20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Enhanced Safety
                                 Provisions for Lithium
                                 Batteries Transported by
                                 Aircraft.
111...........................  Pipeline Safety: Safety           2137-AE66  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of Hazardous Liquid
                                 Pipelines.
112...........................  Pipeline Safety: Safety           2137-AE72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of Gas Transmission
                                 Pipelines, MAOP
                                 Reconfirmation,
                                 Expansion of Assessment
                                 Requirements and Other
                                 Related Amendments.
113...........................  Hazardous Materials: Oil          2137-AF08  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Spill Response Plans and
                                 Information Sharing for
                                 High-Hazard Flammable
                                 Trains (FAST Act).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57816]]


                                         Department of Veterans Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
114...........................  Veterans Community Walk-          2900-AQ47  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 in Care.
115...........................  Economic Growth,                  2900-AQ42  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Regulatory Relief, and
                                 Consumer Protection Act
                                 (the Act), Public Law
                                 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296.
116...........................  Veterans Health                   2900-AQ44  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Administration Benefits
                                 Claims, Appeals, and Due
                                 Process.
117...........................  Veterans Care Agreements.         2900-AQ45  Final Rule Stage.
118...........................  Veterans Community Care           2900-AQ46  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
119...........................  Reclassification of Major         2060-AM75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Sources as Area Sources
                                 Under Section 112 of the
                                 Clean Air Act.
120...........................  Emission Guidelines for           2060-AT67  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
                                 From Existing Electric
                                 Utility Generating
                                 Units; Revisions to
                                 Emission Guideline
                                 Implementing
                                 Regulations; Revisions
                                 to New Source Review
                                 Program.
121...........................  Prevention of Significant         2060-AT89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Deterioration (PSD) and
                                 Nonattainment New Source
                                 Review (NSR): Project
                                 Emissions Accounting.
122...........................  Oil and Natural Gas               2060-AT90  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Sector: Emission
                                 Standards for New,
                                 Reconstructed, and
                                 Modified Sources Review.
123...........................  Mercury and Air Toxics            2060-AT99  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Power
                                 Plants Residual Risk and
                                 Technology Review and
                                 Cost Review.
124...........................  The Safer Affordable Fuel-        2060-AU09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Efficient (SAFE)
                                 Vehicles Rule for Model
                                 Years 2021-2026
                                 Passenger Cars and Light
                                 Trucks.
125...........................  Regulation of Persistent,         2070-AK34  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Bioaccumulative, and
                                 Toxic Chemicals Under
                                 TSCA Section 6(h).
126...........................  Pesticides; Certification         2070-AK37  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of Pesticide Applicators
                                 Rule; Reconsideration of
                                 the Minimum Age
                                 Requirements.
127...........................  Pesticides; Agricultural          2070-AK43  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Worker Protection
                                 Standard;
                                 Reconsideration of
                                 Several Requirements.
128...........................  Increasing Consistency            2010-AA12  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Transparency in
                                 Considering Costs and
                                 Benefits in the
                                 Rulemaking Process.
129...........................  Hazardous and Solid Waste         2050-AG98  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Management System:
                                 Disposal of Coal
                                 Combustion Residues From
                                 Electric Utilities:
                                 Amendments to the
                                 National Minimum
                                 Criteria (Phase 2).
130...........................  National Primary Drinking         2040-AF15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Water Regulations for
                                 Lead and Copper:
                                 Regulatory Revisions.
131...........................  National Primary Drinking         2040-AF28  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Water Regulations:
                                 Regulation of
                                 Perchlorate.
132...........................  Revised Definition of             2040-AF75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 ``Waters of the United
                                 States''.
133...........................  Effluent Limitations              2040-AF77  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Guidelines and Standards
                                 for the Steam Electric
                                 Power Generating Point
                                 Source Category.
134...........................  Peak Flows Management....         2040-AF81  Proposed Rule Stage.
135...........................  Clean Water Act Section           2040-AF88  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 404(c) Regulatory
                                 Revision.
136...........................  Review of the Primary             2060-AT68  Final Rule Stage.
                                 National Ambient Air
                                 Quality Standards for
                                 Sulfur Oxides.
137...........................  Renewable Fuel Volume             2060-AT93  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for 2019 and
                                 Biomass-Based Diesel
                                 (BBD) Volume for 2020.
138...........................  Review of Dust-Lead               2070-AJ82  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Hazard Standards and the
                                 Definition of Lead-Based
                                 Paint.
139...........................  Service Fees for the              2070-AK27  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Administration of the
                                 Toxic Substances Control
                                 Act.
140...........................  Clean Water Act Hazardous         2050-AG87  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Substances Spill
                                 Prevention.
141...........................  Accidental Release                2050-AG95  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Prevention Requirements:
                                 Risk Management Programs
                                 Under the Clean Air Act;
                                 Reconsideration of
                                 Amendments.
142...........................  Hazardous and Solid Waste         2050-AH01  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Management System:
                                 Disposal of Coal
                                 Combustion Residues From
                                 Electric Utilities:
                                 Amendments to the
                                 National Minimum
                                 Criteria (Phase 1, Part
                                 2).
143...........................  Definition of ``Waters of         2040-AF74  Final Rule Stage.
                                 the United States''--
                                 Recodification of
                                 Preexisting Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
144...........................  Amendments to Regulations         3046-AB10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Americans With
                                 Disabilities Act.
145...........................  Amendments to Regulations         3046-AB11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Genetic
                                 Information
                                 Nondiscrimination Act of
                                 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57817]]


                                         General Services Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
146...........................  General Services                  3090-AJ64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Administration
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
                                 G506, Adoption of
                                 Construction Project
                                 Delivery Method
                                 Involving Early Industry
                                 Engagement.
147...........................  General Services                  3090-AJ84  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
                                 G511, Contract
                                 Requirements for GSA
                                 Information Systems.
148...........................  General Services                  3090-AJ85  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Administration
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
                                 G515, Cyber Incident
                                 Reporting.
149...........................  Federal Permitting                3090-AJ88  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Improvement Steering
                                 Council (FPISC); FPISC
                                 Case 2018-001; Fees for
                                 Governance, Oversight,
                                 and Processing of
                                 Environmental Reviews
                                 and Authorizations.
150...........................  GSAR Case 2008-G517,              3090-AI68  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Cooperative Purchasing--
                                 Acquisition of Security
                                 and Law Enforcement
                                 Related Goods and
                                 Services (Schedule 84)
                                 by State and Local
                                 Governments Through
                                 Federal Supply Schedules.
151...........................  General Services                  3090-AJ41  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Administration
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 (GSAR); GSAR Case 2013-
                                 G502, Federal Supply
                                 Schedule Contract
                                 Administration.
152...........................  General Services                  3090-AK03  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Administration
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 (GSAR); GSAR Case 2019-
                                 G501, Ordering
                                 Procedures for
                                 Commercial e-Commerce
                                 Portals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
153...........................  Detection and Avoidance           2700-AE38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of Counterfeit Parts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Office of Personnel Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
154...........................  Freedom of Information            3206-AK53  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Act (FOIA) Regulations.
155...........................  Direct-Hire Authority for         3206-AN65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Agency Chief Information
                                 Officers.
156...........................  Administrative Law Judges         3206-AN72  Final Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157...........................  Small Business HUBZone            3245-AG38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Program and Government
                                 Contracting Programs.
158...........................  Women-Owned Small                 3245-AG75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Business and
                                 Economically
                                 Disadvantaged Women-
                                 Owned Small Business--
                                 Certification.
159...........................  Implementation of the             3245-AH05  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Small Business 7(a)
                                 Lending Oversight Reform
                                 Act of 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Digestive
                                 Disorders,
                                 Cardiovascular
                                 Disorders, and Skin
                                 Disorders.
161...........................  Removing Inability to             0960-AH86  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Communicate in English
                                 as an Education Category.
162...........................  Newer and Stronger                0960-AH91  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Penalties (Conforming
                                 Changes).
163...........................  Privacy Act Exemption:            0960-AH97  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Personnel Security and
                                 Suitability Program
                                 Files.
164...........................  References to Social              0960-AI04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Security and Medicare in
                                 Electronic
                                 Communications.
165...........................  Availability of                   0960-AI07  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Information and Records
                                 to the Public.
166...........................  Setting the Manner for            0960-AI09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 the Appearance of
                                 Parties and Witnesses at
                                 a Hearing.
167...........................  Redeterminations When             0960-AI10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 There Is a Reason To
                                 Believe Fraud or Similar
                                 Fault Was Involved in an
                                 Individual's Application
                                 for Benefits.
168...........................  Hearings Held by                  0960-AI25  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Administrative Appeals
                                 Judges of the Appeals
                                 Council.
169...........................  Rules Regarding the               0960-AI27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Frequency and Notice of
                                 Continuing Disability
                                 Reviews.
170...........................  Privacy and Disclosure of         0960-AI38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Official Records and
                                 Information.
171...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG38  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Musculoskeletal
                                 Disorders (3318P).
172...........................  Privacy Act Exemption:            0960-AI08  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Social Security
                                 Administration Violence
                                 Evaluation and Reporting
                                 System (SSAvers).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57818]]


                                       Consumer Product Safety Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173...........................  Regulatory Options for            3041-AC31  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Table Saws.
174...........................  Portable Generators......         3041-AC36  Final Rule Stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Nuclear Regulatory Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
175...........................  Low-Level Radioactive             3150-AI92  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Waste Disposal [NRC-2011-
                                 0012].
176...........................  Regulatory Improvements           3150-AJ59  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Production and
                                 Utilization Facilities
                                 Transitioning to
                                 Decommissioning [NRC-
                                 2015-0070].
177...........................  Cyber Security at Fuel            3150-AJ64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Cycle Facilities [NRC-
                                 2015-0179].
178...........................  American Society of               3150-AJ74  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Mechanical Engineers
                                 2015-2017 Code Editions
                                 Incorporation by
                                 Reference [NRC-2016-
                                 0082].
179...........................  Approval of American              3150-AJ93  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Society of Mechanical
                                 Engineers Code Cases,
                                 Revision 38 [NRC-2017-
                                 0024].
180...........................  Revision of Fee                   3150-AJ99  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Schedules: Fee Recovery
                                 for FY 2019 [NRC-2017-
                                 0032].
181...........................  Mitigation of Beyond              3150-AJ49  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Design Basis Events
                                 (MBDBE) [NRC-2014-0240].
182...........................  Advanced Power Reactor            3150-AJ67  Final Rule Stage.
                                 1400 (APR-1400) Design
                                 Certification [NRC-2015-
                                 0224].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. ??-????? Filed ??-??-??; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Fall 2018 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ongoing regulatory reform 
strategy remains one of the cornerstones for creating a culture of 
consistent, efficient service to our customers, while reducing burdens 
and improving efficiency. Accordingly, USDA's fall 2018 Regulatory 
Agenda reflects these priorities, including those administrative 
efficiencies such as streamlining and one-stop shopping. Moreover, 
these USDA regulatory reform efforts, combined with other reform 
efforts, will make it easier to invest, produce, and build in rural 
America, which will lead to the creation of jobs and enhanced economic 
prosperity. To achieve results, USDA is guided by the following 
comprehensive set of priorities through which the Department, its 
employees, and external partners will work to identify and eliminate 
regulatory and administrative barriers and improve business processes 
to enhance program delivery and reduce burdens on program participants. 
These priorities include:
    [rtarr8] Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF): In response to 
Executive Order 13777--Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda and 
Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs, which set forth expectations for reducing the regulatory burden 
on the public, the Department has established an internal RRTF to 
identify outdated regulations for elimination and administrative 
processes for streamlining. The USDA RRTF is comprised of senior agency 
managers representing all the major missions of the Department. USDA is 
also soliciting public comments on recommended reforms through July 
2019.
    [rtarr8] Organizational Reform: To ensure that USDA's programs, 
agencies, and offices best serve the Department's customers, USDA is 
implementing organizational changes that are targeted at improving 
customer service like seeking direct public feedback through our Tell 
Sonny initiative. Through these reforms, USDA is breaking down 
organizational barriers that have impeded the Department's ability to 
most effectively and efficiently support its customers across the 
Nation. Moreover, reforms like the consolidation of administrative 
functions at the mission area level eliminate inefficiencies and allow 
the Department to best support the needs of our customers. Through the 
implementation of these improvements, USDA will be better positioned to 
remove obstacles, and give agricultural producers every opportunity to 
prosper and feed a growing world population. These improvements support 
the accomplishment of USDA's mission to provide leadership on 
agriculture, food, natural resources, rural prosperity, nutrition, and 
related issues through fact-based, data-driven, and customer-focused 
decisions.
    Farm Bill Implementation: Legislation covering major commodity 
support programs and crop insurance, trade, conservation, rural 
development, nutrition assistance and other programs (the Farm Bill) 
expires at the end of fiscal year 2018. Plans for implementation to any 
new or modified programs reauthorized in the new Farm Bill will be 
considered upon enactment and regulatory agenda priorities adjusted 
accordingly. USDA notes that Farm Bill implementation will allow us the 
opportunity to modify existing regulations while introducing program 
reforms to ease the burden on our customers and improve program 
outcomes.

Executive Order 13777--Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda

    Executive Order 13777 establishes a Federal policy to lower 
regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and enforcing 
regulatory reform. The RRTF reviewed proposed, pending and existing 
regulations to determine the deregulatory and regulatory actions to 
include in the 2018 fall Regulatory Agenda. These actions were further 
evaluated to determine which rules should be made a priority based on 
the impact of their proposals and the Department's ability to finalize 
the action in FY 2019. Executive Order 13777 also directed the 
Department to seek input from entities significantly affected by 
Federal regulations. To satisfy this requirement, the Department 
published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register on 
July 17, 2017, seeking public input on identifying regulatory reform 
initiatives

[[Page 57819]]

(82 FR 32649). The RFI asked the public to identify regulations, 
guidance documents, or any other policy documents or administrative 
processes that need reform, as well as ideas on how to modify, 
streamline, expand, or repeal such items. Through the end of June 2018, 
USDA had received and reviewed over 4,000 public comments on 
recommended reforms, including requests from stakeholders to extend the 
public comment period past its one-year time period. Accordingly, USDA 
has extended the public comment period through July 18, 2019. While 
comments to the notice do not bind USDA to any further actions, all 
submissions are reviewed and inform actions to repeal, replace, or 
modify existing regulations.

Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs

    Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to eliminate two existing 
regulations for every new regulation while limiting the total costs 
associated with an agency's regulations. Specifically, it requires a 
regulatory two-for-one wherein an agency must propose the elimination 
of two existing regulations for every new regulation it publishes. 
Moreover, the costs associated with the new regulation must be 
completely offset by cost savings brought about by deregulation.
    The Department's 2018 fall Regulatory Agenda reflects the 
Department's commitment to regulatory reform and continues USDA's 
rigorous implementation of Executive Order 13771. The Regulatory Agenda 
identifies 72 rules, of which 34 rules are not subject to the 
offsetting or deregulatory requirements of Executive Order 13771. Of 
the remaining 38 rules, 32 are deregulatory and six are regulatory. Of 
the 32 deregulatory actions, USDA has identified 16 final rules that 
will be completed in FY 2019 resulting in either a cost savings or 
meeting the direction that an agency issue twice as many Executive 
Order 13771 deregulatory actions as Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
actions.
    USDA's 2018 fall Statement of Regulatory Priorities was developed 
to lower regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and 
enforcing regulatory reform. These regulatory priorities will 
contribute to the mission of the Department, and the achievement of the 
long-term goals the Department aims to accomplish. Highlights of how 
the Department's regulatory reform efforts contribute to the 
accomplishment of the Department's strategic goals include the 
following:
    The Department will promote American agricultural products and 
exports that benefit and grow the U.S. agricultural economy and rural 
America: To achieve this, USDA will expand international marketing 
opportunities through promotion activities, development of 
international standards, removal of trade barriers to U.S. exports, and 
negotiation of new trade agreements. USDA will also partner with 
developing countries to assist them with movement along the 
agricultural market continuum from developing economies to developed 
economies with promising demand potential.
    [rtarr8] Agricultural Trade Promotion Program: This action will 
assist U.S. agricultural industries to conduct market promotion 
activities that promote U.S. agricultural commodities in foreign 
markets, including activities that address existing or potential non-
tariff barriers to trade. For more information about this rule, see RIN 
0551-AA92.
    The Department will ensure that programs are delivered efficiently, 
effectively, with integrity, and a focus on customer service: To 
achieve this, USDA is working to leverage the strength and talent of 
USDA employees with continued dedication to data-driven enterprise 
solutions through collaborative governance and human capital management 
strategies centered on accountability and professional development. 
USDA will reduce regulatory and administrative burdens hindering 
agencies from reaching the greatest number of stakeholders. Improved 
customer service and employee engagement within USDA will create a more 
effective and accessible organization for all stakeholders.
    [rtarr8] Implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure 
Standard: This action was mandated by the National Bioengineered Food 
Disclosure Standard (Law), which required USDA to develop a national 
standard and the procedures for its implementation within two years of 
the Law's enactment. Pursuant to the law, AMS has proposed requirements 
that, if finalized, will serve as a national mandatory bioengineered 
food disclosure standard for bioengineered food and food that may be 
bioengineered. The proposed rule published on May 4, 2018, and the 
deadline for public comment was July 3, 2018. AMS reviewed over 14,000 
comments that will be analyzed and addressed in the final rule. For 
more information about this rule, see RIN 0581-AD54.
    [rtarr8] Improve effectiveness and efficiency of helping 
individuals move into work: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) 
establishes a time limit for participation in SNAP of three months in 
three years for able-bodied adults without children who are not 
working. FNA allows states to waive the time limit under certain 
circumstances. The proposed action would modify SNAP requirements and 
services for able-bodied adults without children in response to public 
input provided through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on February 23, 2018. For more information about this rule, 
see RIN 0584-AE57.
    [rtarr8] Revision of categorical eligibility in the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
allows households in which all members receiving benefits under a State 
program funded by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
program are categorically eligible to participate in SNAP. States have 
the option of adopting a policy in which households may become 
categorically eligible for SNAP because they receive a non-cash or in-
kind benefit or service funded by TANF. FNS will issue a proposed rule 
to amend the regulations pertaining to categorically eligible TANF 
households by limiting categorical eligibility to households that 
received cash TANF or other substantial assistance from TANF. For more 
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE62.
    [rtarr8] Reform provisions for the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program's Quality Control System: FNS will propose revisions 
to reform and strengthen its SNAP Quality Control system based on 
stakeholder input received from its June 1, 2018, request for State 
government and stakeholder input as to how to best proceed with 
reforming the SNAP Quality Control system. For more information about 
this rule, see RIN 0584-AE64.
    [rtarr8] Simplifying Rural Development's Guaranteed Loan 
Regulations Combining Rural Development Guaranteed Loan Regulations 
into a single regulation: Rural Development proposes to combine its 
four existing guaranteed loan regulations: (1) Water and Waste 
Disposal; (2) Community Facilities; (3) Business and Industry; and (4) 
Rural Energy for America, into a single regulation. The proposed action 
will enable Rural Development to simplify, improve, and enhance the 
delivery of these four guaranteed loan programs, and better manage the 
risks inherent with making and servicing guaranteed loans and will 
result in an improved customer experience for

[[Page 57820]]

lenders trying to access these programs. For more information about 
this rule, see RIN 0572-AC43.
    [rtarr8] Servicing Regulation for the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 
Telecommunications Programs: The RUS Telecommunications Programs 
provide loan funding to build and expand broadband service into 
unserved and underserved rural communities, along with limited funding 
to support the costs to acquire equipment to provide distance learning 
and telemedicine service. RUS will propose to modify the program to 
give RUS greater authority to address servicing actions associated with 
distressed loans employing only limited coordination with the 
Department of Justice. This will streamline and expedite servicing 
actions, improve the government's recovery on such loans, and improve 
overall customer service. For more information about this rule, see RIN 
0572-AC41.
    [rtarr8] Amendments to Rural Development (RD) environmental reviews 
for rural infrastructure projects: USDA's RD programs provide loans, 
grants and loan guarantees to support investment in rural 
infrastructure to spur economic development, create jobs, improve the 
quality of life, and address the health and safety needs of rural 
residents. The current regulation requires that the environmental 
review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) be completed 
prior to the completion of the obligation of funds. The proposal will 
allow RD some flexibility with the authority to move forward with the 
obligation of funds conditioned upon the completion of environmental 
review for infrastructure projects. For more information about this 
rule, see RIN 0572-AC44.
    [rtarr8] Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to 
Requirements for Dogs: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) will issue a proposal that would amend the regulations 
governing the issuance and renewal of licenses under the Animal Welfare 
Act (AWA) to better promote sustained compliance under the AWA by (1) 
reducing licensing fees and (2) strengthening existing safeguards that 
prevent an individual whose license has been suspended or revoked, or 
who has a history of noncompliance, from obtaining a license or working 
with regulated animals. This rulemaking would also strengthen the 
veterinary care and watering standards for regulated dogs to better 
align the regulations with the humane care and treatment standards set 
by the Animal Welfare Act. The proposal follows an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking published on August 24, 2017, that solicited 
comment from the public to aid in the development of these revisions. 
APHIS received and analyzed approximately 47,000 public comments. For 
more information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AE35.
    The Department is making it a priority to maximize the ability of 
American agricultural producers to prosper by feeding and clothing the 
world: A strong and prosperous agricultural sector is essential to the 
well-being of the overall U.S. economy. America's farmers and ranchers 
ensure a safe and reliable food and fuel supply and support job growth 
and economic development. To maintain a strong agricultural economy, 
USDA will support farmers in starting and maintaining profitable farm 
and ranch businesses, as well as offer support to producers affected by 
natural disasters. The Department will continue to work to create new 
markets and support a competitive agricultural system by reducing 
barriers that inhibit agricultural opportunities and economic growth.
    [rtarr8] Seed Cotton Changes to Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and 
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Programs: This final action, as authorized by 
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, will revise the ARC and PLC Programs 
to add seed cotton to the list of covered commodities and establish a 
loan rate for the purposes of calculating an ARC or PLC payment. For 
more information about this rule, see RIN 560-AI40.
    [rtarr8] Market Facilitation Program: This action will assist 
agricultural producers with respect to commodities, livestock, or 
livestock products that have been significantly impacted by actions of 
foreign governments resulting in the loss of traditional exports. For 
more information about this rule, see RIN 0560-AI42.
    [rtarr8] Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release Into the 
Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms (Part 340): 
APHIS is proposing to revise its regulations regarding the importation, 
interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically 
engineered organisms in order to update the regulations in response to 
advances in genetic engineering and APHIS' understanding of the plant 
health risk posed by genetically engineered organisms, thereby reducing 
burden for regulated entities whose organisms pose no plant health 
risks. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AE47.
    [rtarr8] National Organic Program; Strengthening Organic 
Enforcement: The Agricultural Marketing Service will propose changes to 
the USDA organic regulations to strengthen the oversight of organic 
products, improve enforcement of organic standards, and protect organic 
integrity. The proposal will address gaps in the organic standards to 
deter fraud, and enhance enforcement. In addition, this proposal will 
support consumer trust and continued industry growth. For more 
information about this rule, see RIN 0581-AD09.
    [rtarr8] Establishing a performance standard for authorizing the 
importation and interstate movement of fruits and vegetables: APHIS 
would broaden the existing performance standard to provide for 
consideration of all new fruits and vegetables for importation into the 
United States using a notice-based process rather than through proposed 
and final rules. Likewise, APHIS would propose an equivalent revision 
of the performance standard governing the interstate movements of 
fruits and vegetables from Hawaii and the U.S. territories (Guam, 
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and 
the removal of commodity-specific phytosanitary requirements from those 
regulations. This action will allow APHIS to consider requests to 
authorize the importation or interstate movement of new fruits and 
vegetables in a manner that is more flexible and responsive to evolving 
pest situations in both the United States and exporting countries, 
while maintaining the science-based process for making risk 
evaluations. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0579-AD71.
    Providing all Americans access to a safe, nutritious, and secure 
food supply is USDA's most important responsibility, and it is one 
undertaken with great seriousness. USDA has critical roles in 
preventing foodborne illness and protecting public health, while 
ensuring Americans have access to food and healthful diet. The 
Department will continue to prevent contamination and limit foodborne 
illness by expanding its modernization of food inspection systems, and 
USDA's research, education, and extension programs will continue to 
provide information, tools, and technologies about the causes of 
foodborne illness and its prevention. USDA will continue to develop 
partnerships that support best practices in implementing effective 
nutrition assistance programs that ensure eligible populations have 
access to programs that support their food needs.

[[Page 57821]]

    [rtarr8] Increase flexibilities provided to school lunch program 
operators in meeting nutrition requirements: The Food and Nutrition 
Service (FNS) plans to issue a final rule that provides flexibilities 
to Program operators participating in the Child Nutrition Programs 
effective School Year 2019-2020. For more information about this rule, 
see RIN 0584-AE53.
    [rtarr8] Provide regulatory flexibility for retailers in the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): FNS will issue a 
proposed rule to provide retailers with more flexibility in meeting the 
enhanced SNAP eligibility requirements of the 2016 final rule and meet 
the requirements expressed in the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 
2017. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE61.
    [rtarr8] Modernize swine slaughter inspection: The Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS) plans to finalize a proposal published on 
February 1, 2018, to establish a voluntary New Swine Inspection System 
(NSIS) for market-hog slaughter establishments, and mandatory 
provisions for all swine slaughtering establishments. NSIS will provide 
for increased offline inspection activities that are more directly 
related to food safety resulting in greater compliance with sanitation 
and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations and 
reduce the risk of foodborne illness. FSIS received over 83,500 
comments. Many of the comments requested that FSIS withdraw the 
proposal to remove limits on line speeds due to the negative effect on 
animal welfare and worker safety. These comments will be analyzed and 
further addressed in the final rule. For more information about this 
rule, see RIN 0583-AD62.
    The Department will ensure productive and sustainable use of our 
National Forest System Lands: To ensure that America's forests and 
grasslands are healthy and sustainable, USDA manages approximately 193 
million acres of public land, much of it rural and remote. Land 
management activities can influence rural economies, and USDA can help 
enable economic growth and recovery.
    [rtarr8] Update and Clarification of the Locatable Mineral 
Regulations: The Forest Service plans to seek public input as it 
evaluates its management of the activities associated with mining 
``locatable minerals'' that have an impact on the surface resources 
including expediting Forest Service review and approval of certain 
proposed mineral operations on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The 
Forest Service plans to seek public input to determine whether its 
assessment of the need for these changes is shared by the public. For 
more information about this rule, see RIN 0596-AD32.
    [rtarr8] Oil and Gas Resource Revisions: The Forest Service plans 
to seek public input as it evaluates its regulations concerning its 
responsibility for authorizing and regulating access to federal oil and 
natural gas resources. Updating the regulations will afford an 
opportunity to modernize and streamline analytical and procedural 
requirements, reduce the paperwork burden on industry, reduce 
permitting times for leasing NFS lands, and help provide a more 
consistent approach to oil and gas management across the NFS. In 
addition, USDA recommended revising the regulation as part of the USDA 
Final Report Pursuant to Executive Order 13783 on Promoting Energy 
Independence and Economic Growth. The regulation revision will also 
make updates in response to legislative actions such as the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0596-
AD33.

USDA--AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)

Proposed Rule Stage

1. NOP; Strengthening Organic Enforcement

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The rule supports a broader strategy to strengthen 
oversight of organic imports and the organic supply chain. AMS intends 
this rule to deter fraud, enhance enforcement and protect organic 
integrity.
    Statement of Need: The March 2010 Office of Inspector General (OIG) 
audit of the National Organic Program (NOP) raised issues related to 
the program's progress for imposing enforcement actions. One concern 
was that organic producers and handlers facing revocation or suspension 
of their certification are able to market their products as organic 
during what can be a lengthy appeals process. As a result, AMS expects 
to publish a proposed rule to revise language in section 205.681 of the 
NOP regulations, which pertains to adverse action appeals. It is 
expected that this rule will streamline the NOP appeals process such 
that appeals are reviewed and responded to in a more timely manner.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 
(OFPA), 7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq., requires that the Secretary establish an 
expedited administrative appeals procedure for appealing an action of 
the Secretary or certifying agent (section 6520). The NOP regulations 
describe how appeals of proposed adverse action concerning 
certification and accreditation are initiated and further contested 
(sections 205.680, 205.681).
    Alternatives: The program considered maintaining the status quo and 
hiring additional support for the NOP appeals team. This rulemaking was 
determined to be preferable because it will reduce redundancy in the 
appeals process, where an appellant can more quickly appeal the 
administrator's decision to an administrative law judge.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This action will affect certified 
operations and accredited certifying agents. The primary impact is 
expected to be expedited enforcement action, which may benefit the 
organic community through deterrence and increased consumer confidence 
in the organic label. It is not expected to have a significant cost 
burden upon affected entities beyond any monetary penalty or suspension 
or revocation of certification or accreditation, to which these 
entities are already subject to under current regulations.
    Risks: No risks have been identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Jennifer Tucker, Deputy Administrator, USDA 
National Organic Program, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, 
Phone: 202 260-8077.
    RIN: 0581-AD09

USDA--AMS

Final Rule Stage

2. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-216; 7 U.S.C. 1621 to 1627

[[Page 57822]]

    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1285.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 29, 2018.
    Abstract: Abstract: On July 29, 2016, the Agricultural Marketing 
Act of 1946 was amended to establish a National Bioengineered Food 
Disclosure Standard (Law) (Pub. L. 114-216). The provisions of this 
rule, pursuant to the law, will serve as a national mandatory 
bioengineered food disclosure standard for bioengineered food and food 
that may be bioengineered.
    Statement of Need: This rule would establish a single, national 
standard to supersede a patchwork of similar standards implemented or 
planned by individual States. The rule may be considered a regulatory 
reduction in that affected entities would be regulated by a uniform 
standard recognized in both interstate commerce and international 
trade. Consumers would benefit from a single standard for consistent 
messaging about bioengineered food in the market.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action is provided 
by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as amended by Pub. L. 114-
216.
    Alternatives: The proposed rule evaluated alternative thresholds 
for which disclosure would be required and alternative definitions for 
the term ``very small food manufacturer.''
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Implementation of the standard is 
intended to coincide with that of the Food and Drug Administration's 
updated food labeling requirements. Such coordination would reduce 
expenses for affected food manufactures, who would otherwise bear twice 
the cost of changing food labels to comply with each regulation.
    Risks: No risks have been identified at this time.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/04/18  83 FR 19860
Comment Period End..................   07/03/18  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Arthur Neal, Deputy Administrator, Transportation 
and Marketing, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 
Service, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 692-1300.
    RIN: 0581-AD54

USDA--ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)

Proposed Rule Stage

3. Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to 
Requirements for Dogs

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131 to 2159
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 1 to 3.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the licensing requirements 
under the Animal Welfare Act regulations to promote compliance, reduce 
licensing fees, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent 
individuals and businesses who have a history of noncompliance from 
obtaining a license or working with regulated animals. This action 
would reduce regulatory burden with respect to licensing and more 
efficiently ensure licensees' sustained compliance with the Act. This 
rulemaking would also strengthen the veterinary care and watering 
standards for regulated dogs to better align the regulations with the 
humane care and treatment standards set by the Animal Welfare Act.
    Statement of Need: Although an applicant for a license renewal must 
also certify that he or she is in compliance with all regulations, the 
current regulations do not require the applicant to show compliance 
before APHIS renews his or her license. As a result, licensees can 
currently renew their licenses indefinitely without undergoing a 
thorough compliance inspection. This proposal would require persons to 
seek a new license every three years and demonstrate compliance with 
the AWA regulations as part of the application process. Further, the 
current regulations do not require a licensee to show compliance when 
the licensee makes any subsequent changes to his or her animals or 
facilities, including noteworthy changes in the number or type of 
animals used in regulated activity. Based on our experience with 
enforcing the AWA and regulations, we are concerned that many licensees 
struggle to achieve and maintain compliance after making such changes 
to their animals used in regulated activity.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the 
Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 
to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane 
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by 
dealers, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, research facilities, 
and carriers and intermediate handlers. Definitions, regulations, and 
standards established under the AWA are contained in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to below 
as the regulations). Part 2 provides administrative requirements and 
sets forth institutional responsibilities for regulated parties, 
including licensing requirements for dealers, exhibitors, and operators 
of auction sales.
    Alternatives: APHIS considered several alternatives in developing 
various aspects of the proposed rule. Regarding the types of animals 
that would trigger the need for a new license, APHIS considered 
requiring a new license for all exotic or wild animal changes, but 
rejected this in favor of requiring a new license for types of animals 
that are dangerous and have unique regulatory and care needs. With 
respect to license termination following two or more attempted 
inspections during the period of licensure, APHIS considered requiring 
immediate termination but decided in favor of allowing the licensee the 
opportunity to first present evidence in defense. APHIS also considered 
different time frames for the fixed-term license (e.g., four or five 
years) and settled on three years based on our experience administering 
the AWA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule would result in cost 
savings for both APHIS and licensees by simplifying the licensing 
process and reducing fees, while enhancing the protection of covered 
animals. Total cost reductions for affected entities are expected to 
range between $600,000 and $2.1 million per year. In accordance with 
guidance on complying with E.O. 13771, the single primary estimate of 
cost savings for this proposed rule is $1.37 million, the midpoint 
estimate of savings annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount 
rate.
    Risks: This proposed rule would address two existing areas of 
concern. As noted, it is possible for licensees to renew their licenses 
without undergoing a thorough compliance inspection and for licensees 
to make noteworthy changes in the number or type of animals used in 
regulated activity. This rulemaking would address those concerns by 
requiring licensees to affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the 
AWA regulations and standards and to obtain a new license

[[Page 57823]]

when making noteworthy changes subsequent to the issuance of a license 
in regard to the number, type, or location of animals used in regulated 
activities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/24/17  82 FR 40077
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/23/17  .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   10/23/17  82 FR 48938
ANPRM Comment Period Extended End...   11/02/17  .......................
NPRM................................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Christine Jones, Chief of Staff, Animal Care, 
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, Phone: 301 851-
3730.
    RIN: 0579-AE35

USDA--APHIS

4.  Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release Into the 
Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781-to 786
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 340.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: APHIS is proposing to revise its regulations regarding 
the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of 
certain genetically engineered organisms in order to update the 
regulations in response to advances in genetic engineering and APHIS' 
understanding of the plant health risk posed by genetically engineered 
organisms, thereby reducing the burden for regulated entities whose 
organisms pose no plant health risks.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary in order to respond to 
advances in genetic engineering and APHIS' understanding of the pest 
risks posed by genetically engineered (GE) organisms, to assess such 
organisms for plant pest risks in light of those advances and establish 
a process to determine whether APHIS has jurisdiction under the Plant 
Protection Act to regulate specific GE organisms under Part 340, and to 
respond to two Office of Inspector General audits regarding APHIS' 
regulation of genetically engineered organisms, as well as the 
requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Plant Protection Act, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
    Alternatives: Alternatives that we considered were (1) to leave the 
regulations unchanged and (2) to regulate all GE organisms as 
presenting a possible plant pest or noxious weed risk, without 
exception, and with no means of granting nonregulated status.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: Unless we issue this proposal, we will not be able to 
respond to the products of future technologies and not be able to 
provide appropriate oversight of GE organisms that pose a plant pest 
risk. Additionally, as noted above, the current regulations do not 
incorporate recommendations of two OIG audits, and do not respond to 
the requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill, particularly regarding APHIS 
oversight of field trials and environmental releases of genetically 
engineered organisms.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    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 https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Gwendolyn Burnett, Agriculturalist, BRS, Department 
of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River 
Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, Phone: 301 851-3893.
    RIN: 0579-AE47

USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)

Proposed Rule Stage

5. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements for Able-
Bodied Adults Without Dependents

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 6(o)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
2008, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.24(f).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended (the Act), 
establishes a time limit for SNAP participation of three months in 
three years for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) who are 
not working. The Act provides State flexibility by allowing State 
agencies to request to waive the time limit if an area that an 
individual resides in has an unemployment rate of over 10 percent or 
does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide employment for 
individuals. This rule will propose modifications to the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) requirements and services for Able-
Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) in response to public input 
provided through the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
    Statement of Need: SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of 
eligible, low-income individuals and families; this nutrition 
assistance also provides economic benefits to communities. It is 
important that SNAP support self-sufficiency and reduce the need for 
government assistance for its program participants. The Department 
recognizes that a well-paying job provides the best path to self-
sufficiency for those who are able to work. To that end, the Department 
aims to create conditions that incentivize SNAP program participants to 
find employment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Currently unavailable.
    Alternatives: Currently unavailable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Currently unavailable.
    Risks: Currently unavailable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/23/18  83 FR 8013
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.

[[Page 57824]]

    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE57

USDA--FNS

6. Providing Regulatory Flexibility for Retailers in the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79; 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 278.1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Agricultural Act of 2014 amended the Food and 
Nutrition Act of 2008 to increase the requirement that certain 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) authorized retail food 
stores have available on a continuous basis at least three varieties of 
items in each of four staple food categories, to a mandatory minimum of 
seven varieties. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) codified these 
mandatory requirements. This change will provide some retailers 
participating in SNAP as authorized food stores with more flexibility 
in meeting the enhanced SNAP eligibility requirements.
    Statement of Need: The United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA, or the Department) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS, or the 
Agency) is proposing changes to regulations in Sections 271 and 278 
which modify the definition of variety as it pertains to the stocking 
requirements that certain retail food stores must meet to be eligible 
to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 
On December 15, 2016, FNS published a final rule that amended SNAP 
regulations at 7 CFR parts 271 and 278 to clarify and enhance current 
SNAP regulations governing the eligibility of certain firms to 
participate in SNAP. On May 5, 2017, appropriations legislation (the 
Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2017, or the Omnibus) suspended 
implementation of two provisions in the 2016 final rule: (1) The 
Definition of `Staple Food' Acceptable Varieties in the Four Staple 
Food Categories provision and (2) the Definition of `Retail Food Store' 
Breadth of Stock provision (known as the Definition of ``Variety'' 
provision and the Breadth of Stock provision, respectively). In order 
to move forward with implementing these provisions of the 2016 final 
rule, the Omnibus required USDA to first amend the Definition of 
Variety provision so that the number of qualifying food varieties in 
each staple food category increased.
    Summary of Legal Basis: On May 5, 2017, the Consolidated 
Appropriation Act of 2017 (the Omnibus) was signed into law. Section 
765 of the Omnibus prohibited the USDA from implementing the Definition 
of ``Staple Food'' Acceptable Varieties in the Four Staple Food 
Categories provision (7 CFR 271.2 and 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)) and 
variety as applied in the definition of the term staple food as defined 
at 7 CFR 271.2 to increase the number of items that qualify as 
acceptable varieties in each staple food category from the number of 
items that qualified as acceptable varieties under the 2016 final rule.
    Alternatives: Currently unavailable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department has estimated that 
the proposed rule will save approximately $16.1 million in fiscal year 
(FY) 2018 and approximately $22.5 million over five years, FY 2018 
through FY 2022. Under the 2016 final rule, the cost to currently 
authorized small retailers was estimated to average approximately $245 
per store in the first year and about $620 over five years (including 
ongoing costs of less than $100 per year for years after the first). 
The proposed rule would reduce those costs to about $160 per store in 
the first year and $500 over five years.
    Risks: NA.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0584-AE27
    RIN: 0584-AE61

USDA--FNS

7. Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 601; Pub. L. 113-79
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Under section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 
households in which all members receive benefits under a State program 
funded by the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program are 
categorically eligible to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP). This proposal would change the regulations 
at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2) pertaining to categorically eligible TANF 
households by limiting categorical eligibility to households that 
receive cash TANF or other substantial assistance from TANF. 
Categorical eligibility conferred by any non-cash assistance would be 
limited to substantial ongoing assistance or services, such as child 
care, that have an eligibility determination process similar to cash 
TANF. This rule would not alter categorical eligibility for 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) households or General Assistance 
(GA) households.
    Statement of Need: This proposal would change current regulations 
by limiting categorical eligibility to households that receive cash 
assistance or other ongoing or substantial assistance from TANF, such 
as child care, and that have an eligibility determination process 
similar to cash TANF. These stricter requirements would ensure that 
categorical eligibility is appropriately targeted toward low-income 
households most in need while maintaining administrative streamlining 
across Federal benefits programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Currently unavailable.
    Alternatives: Currently unavailable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Currently unavailable.
    Risks: Currently unavailable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, 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: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE62


[[Page 57825]]



USDA--FNS

8.  Reform Provisions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program's Quality Control System

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 275.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department proposes to revise its regulations for 
various Quality Control (QC) provisions in subpart C of 7 CFR part 275 
to reflect numerous changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program's (SNAP) Quality Control system. There have been concerns about 
the SNAP QC process by not only its stakeholders, but FNS as well, 
primarily due to questions regarding the integrity of State collected 
error rate data that is used to develop SNAP's national error rates. 
SNAP has been working diligently for several years to address these 
concerns and plans to move forward to reform components of its QC 
process to ensure the integrity of state-reported error rates.
    Statement of Need: The Department proposes to revise regulations 
for Quality Control (QC) provisions in subpart C of 7 CFR part 275 to 
reflect numerous changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP) QC system to improve QC integrity. OIG highlighted need 
for changes to SNAP QC procedures in a recent audit. These changes can 
only be made through regulation, not just policy. SNAP has issued an 
RFI to gather ideas from stakeholders on potential regulation changes 
to improve integrity and improper payment management.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FNA Section 16(c).
    Alternatives: None. Regulations needed to make significant change 
to SNAP quality control procedures.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs: Currently unavailable. 
Benefits: Improved integrity and accuracy of SNAP improper payment 
measurement.
    Risks: NA.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE64

USDA--FNS

Final Rule Stage

9. Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and 
Sodium Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1758; 42 U.S.C. 1766; 42 U.S.C. 1772; 42 
U.S.C. 1773; 42 U.S.C. 1779
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210.10; 7 CFR 210.11; 7 CFR 215.7a; 7 CFR 
220.8; 7 CFR 226.20
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule will increase flexibility in the Child 
Nutrition Program requirements related to milk, grains, and sodium 
effective School Year (SY) 2019-2020, which begins July 1, 2019. This 
rule is the culmination of an efficient rulemaking process initiated by 
the Department of Agriculture (USDA) following the Secretary's May 1, 
2017, Proclamation affirming USDA's commitment to assist schools in 
overcoming operational challenges related to the school meals 
regulations implemented in 2012.
    Statement of Need: This final rule will codify, with some 
modifications, three menu planning flexibilities established by the 
interim final rule of the same title published November 30, 2017. By 
codifying these changes, USDA acknowledges the persistent menu planning 
challenges experienced by some schools, and affirms its commitment to 
give schools more control over the food service decisions and greater 
ability to offer wholesome and appealing meals that reflect local 
preferences.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action is provided 
by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 
1758(a)(4), requiring that school meals reflect the latest Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans.
    Alternatives: NA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Currently unavailable.
    Risks: NA.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   11/30/17  82 FR 56703
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      01/29/18  .......................
 End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   07/01/18  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: School Lunch--NSLA Section 9(a)(1)--42 
U.S.C. 1758(a)(1). Child and Adult Care Food Program--NSLA Section 
17(g)--42 U.S.C. 1766(g) Special Milk Program--Child Nutrition Act 
Section 3(a)(1)--42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(1). School Breakfast Program--Child 
Nutrition Act Section 4(e)(1)(A)--42 U.S.C. 1773(e)(1)(A). Smart Snacks 
in Schools--Child Nutrition Act Section 10(b)--42 U.S.C. 1779(b).
    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE53

USDA--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)

Final Rule Stage

10. Egg Product Inspection Regulations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR 
590.10; 9 CFR 590.411; 9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 590.580; 9 
CFR 591.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is 
proposing to require official egg products plants to develop and 
implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems 
and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), consistent with 
HACCP and Sanitation SOP requirements in the meat and poultry products 
inspection regulations. FSIS also is proposing to require egg products 
plants to produce egg products using a process that will eliminate 
detectable pathogens from the finished product. Plants would be 
expected to develop HACCP systems that ensure that pathogens cannot be 
detected in finished egg products.
    In addition, FSIS is proposing to amend the egg products inspection 
regulations by removing the current requirements for prior approval by 
FSIS of egg products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment 
prior to

[[Page 57826]]

their use in official plants; providing for the generic labeling of egg 
products; requiring safe handling labels on shell eggs and egg 
products; and changing the Agency's interpretation of the requirement 
for continuous inspection in official plants.
    Statement of Need: The actions being proposed are part of FSIS's 
regulatory reform effort to better define the roles of Government and 
the regulated industry, encourage innovations that will improve food 
safety, remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on inspected egg products 
plants, and make the egg products regulations as consistent as possible 
with the Agency's meat and poultry products regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action is provided 
by the Egg Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.).
    Alternatives: The Agency considered the following regulatory 
alternatives for the implementation of government standards (HACCP) and 
related requirements for the egg products industry: (1) Status quo; (2) 
Intensify present inspection; (3) Voluntary HACCP regulatory program; 
(4) Mandatory HACCP regulation with exemption for small businesses; (5) 
Modified HACCP recording deviations and responses only; (6) Mandatory 
HACCP, Sanitation SOPs, and lethality performance standards adoption; 
and implementation of the sixth of these regulatory alternatives, 
mandatory HACCP, Sanitation SOPS, and lethality performance standards, 
should achieve immediate reductions in, and an eventual minimization 
of, foodborne hazards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs to the egg products industry 
come from the development of Sanitation SOPs and HACCP plans and 
compliance with the proposed HACCP requirements. FSIS will incur costs 
to train egg products inspectors (EPIs) to ensure that they can 
competently perform inspection duties associated with HACCP and 
Sanitation SOPs at the 77 federally-inspected egg products plants. 
While EPIs are in training, FSIS will also incur costs to pay for 
replacement inspectors so that egg products plants can continue to 
operate.
    Potential industry cost reductions from the proposed rule come from 
generic labeling, and the elimination of certain regulations, waivers, 
and no objection letters. Under generic labeling, plants do not have to 
submit certain labels to FSIS for small changes, allowing plants to 
avoid a 60-day approval process and documentation of submissions for 
the approval of new labels. In addition, plants receive cost savings 
from the elimination of outdated regulations. The regulatory 
requirements in the current system may inefficiently use industry 
resources. HACCP gives egg products plants the flexibility to decide 
how they wish to produce product in the manner that is most efficient 
to them, so that no detectable pathogens remain in the finished 
product.
    Under the current command-and-control based system, FSIS personnel 
must approve waivers and no objection letters for certain plant 
activities outside the current regulations and inspection program, 
personnel assume responsibility for ``approving'' production-associated 
decisions. Under HACCP, industry would assume full responsibility for 
production decisions and execution. FSIS would monitor plants' 
compliance with the requirement that finished egg products not contain 
detectable pathogens and within HACCP requirements. This allows 
industry and the Agency to reduce costs for approving activities and 
allows for better use of resources.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/13/18  83 FR 6314
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/13/18  .......................
Final Action........................   05/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Matthew Michael, Director, Issuances Staff, 
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office 
of Policy and Program Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, 
Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: 202 720-0345, Fax: 202 690-0486, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AC58

USDA--FSIS

11. Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 309; 9 CFR 310; 9 CFR 314.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is 
proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to establish 
a new inspection system for swine slaughter establishments demonstrated 
to provide greater public health protection than the existing 
inspection system. The Agency is also proposing several changes to the 
regulations that would affect all establishments that slaughter swine, 
regardless of the inspection system under which they operate.
    Statement of Need: The proposed action is necessary to improve food 
safety, improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, 
improve the effectiveness of market hog slaughter inspection, make 
better use of the Agency's resources, and remove unnecessary regulatory 
obstacles to innovation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action is provided 
by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    Alternatives: The Agency is considering alternatives such as: (1) A 
mandatory New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS) for market hog 
slaughter establishments and (2) a voluntary NSIS for market hog 
establishments, under which FSIS would conduct the same offline 
inspection activities as traditional inspection.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed regulations are 
expected to benefit establishments by removing unnecessary regulatory 
obstacles to innovation and allowing establishments more flexibility in 
line configuration. The proposed changes are also expected to reduce 
establishments' sampling costs. Additionally, the proposed regulations 
are expected to improve the effectiveness of market hog slaughter 
inspection, leading to a reduction in the number of human illnesses 
attributed to products derived from market hogs. The proposed actions 
make better use of the Agency's resources, which is expected to reduce 
the Agency's personnel and training budgetary requirements. 
Establishments are expected to incur increased labor and recordkeeping 
costs.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/01/18  83 FR 4780
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/02/18
Final Rule..........................   04/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Matthew Michael, Director, Issuances Staff, 
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office 
of Policy and Program

[[Page 57827]]

Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3700, 
Phone: 202 720-0345, Fax: 202 690-0486, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD62

USDA--FOREST SERVICE (FS)

Prerule Stage

12. Update and Clarification of the Locatable Minerals Regulations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 612
    CFR Citation: 36 CFR 228(A).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Forest Service proposes the amendment of its 
locatable mineral regulations that better reflect the needs of both the 
Forest Service and mining industry. By addressing recent issues and 
remedying existing weakness in current regulations that have been 
identified, the Forest Service will be in a better position to better 
implement its mining regulations. The goals of the regulatory revision 
are (1) to expedite Forest Service review and approval of certain 
proposed mineral operations authorized by the United States mining 
laws; (2) to increase consistency with the United States Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) surface management 
regulations governing operations authorized by the United States mining 
laws to assist those who conduct these operations on lands managed by 
each agency; and (3) to increase the Forest Service's nationwide 
consistency in regulating mineral operations authorized by the United 
States mining laws.
    Statement of Need: The Forest Service proposes the amendment of its 
locatable mineral regulations to better reflect the needs of both the 
Forest Service and mining industry. By addressing recent issues and 
remedying existing weakness in current regulations that have been 
identified, the Forest Service will be in a better position to 
implement its mining regulations, thus reducing processing timelines 
and redundancies.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Mining Law of 1872, as amended, confers 
a statutory right to enter upon certain National Forest System lands to 
search for locatable minerals. These rules govern prospecting, 
exploration, development, mining, and processing operations conducted 
on National Forest System lands.
    Alternatives: A no action alternative would leave the regulations 
unchanged, thus maintaining the status-quo.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not applicable.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/13/18  83 FR 46451
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/15/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Ann Goode, Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 
720-7123, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0596-AD32

USDA--FS

13. Oil and Gas Resource Revision

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 612; 30 U.S.C. 181; 30 U.S.C. 351; 30 
U.S.C. 21
    CFR Citation: 36 CFR 228(E).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Forest Service plays a role in the leasing and 
development of Federally owned oil and natural gas found on National 
Forest System lands in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management. 
Updating the regulations will afford an opportunity to modernize and 
streamline analytical and procedural requirements and help provide a 
more consist approach to oil and gas management across the National 
Forest System. The potential changes to the existing regulation 
permitting sections include eliminating language that is redundant with 
the NEPA process, removing confusing options, and ensuring better 
alignment with the BLM regulations. The intent of these potential 
changes would be to decrease permitting times by removing regulatory 
burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production across the 
National Forest System.
    Statement of Need: The Forest Service plays a role in the leasing 
and development of federally owned oil and natural gas found on 
National Forest System lands in partnership with the Bureau of Land 
Management. Updating the regulations will afford an opportunity to 
modernize and streamline analytical and procedural requirements and 
help provide a more consist approach to oil and gas management across 
the National Forest System.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Forest Service 36 CFR 228(e) regulations 
are done as a result of the Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 
1987.
    Alternatives: Forest Service 36 CFR 228(e) regulations are done as 
a result of Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not applicable.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/13/18  83 FR 46458
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/15/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Nicholas Diprofio, Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, 
Phone: 202 205-1082, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0596-AD33

USDA--RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE (RUS)

Final Rule Stage

14. Servicing Regulation for the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 
Telecommunications Programs

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1981; 16 U.S.C. 1005
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1782.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The regulation will cover servicing actions associated 
with the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program, Broadband 
Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program, Distance Learning and 
Telemedicine Program, and Broadband Initiatives Program (hereinafter 
collectively referred to as the ``RUS Telecommunications Programs'').
    Statement of Need: The RUS Telecommunications Programs provide loan 
funding to build and expand broadband service into unserved and 
underserved rural communities, along with very limited funding to 
support the costs to acquire equipment to provide distance learning and 
telemedicine service. This action will provide servicing actions 
available for the loan portofolio and will enable the Agency to quickly 
and consistently address servicing actions and improve customer 
service.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This action is required by statute, the 
Agricultural

[[Page 57828]]

Act of 2014 amendment to section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act 
of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb). This section requires the Secretary to 
establish written procedures for all broadband programs to recover 
funds from loan defaults.
    Alternatives: The agency considered using other existing RD agency 
regulations and decided upon combining Telecommunications servicing 
requirements with the Water Programs servicing regulation. These types 
of RUS loans are more similar than other RD loan programs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs. The 
rule will ensure recipients comply with the established objectives and 
requirements for loans, repaying loans on schedule and acting in 
accordance with any necessary agreements, ensure serving actions are 
handled consistently, and protect the financial interest of the Agency.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule..........................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Thomas P. Dickson, Department of Agriculture, Rural 
Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, 
Phone: 202 690-4492, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0572-AC41

USDA--RUS

15.  OnerD Guaranteed Loan Regulation

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Rural Development proposes to combine into a single 
regulation its four guaranteed loan programs: (1) Water and Waste 
Disposal, (2) Community Facilities, (3) Business and Industry, and (4) 
Rural Energy for America. The new regulation will encompass the 
policies and procedures for guaranteed loan making and servicing, 
lender reporting, and program monitoring. The proposed action will 
enable Rural Development to simplify, improve, and enhance the delivery 
of these four guaranteed loan programs, and better manage the risks 
inherent with making and servicing guaranteed loans and will result in 
an improved customer experience for lenders trying to access these 
programs. This new structure will also make it more efficient and 
faster to promulgate regulations associated with amending existing 
programs or incorporating newly authorized programs in the future.
    Statement of Need: Rural Development is combining its four 
guaranteed loan programs: (1) Water and Waste Disposal; (2) Community 
Facilities; (3) Business and Industry; and (4) Rural Energy for America 
into a single regulation. The new regulation will encompass the 
policies and procedures for guaranteed loan making and servicing, 
lender reporting, and program monitoring. The proposed action is 
expected to involve a few substantive policy changes in order to 
achieve consistency across the included programs and better customer 
experience for lenders trying to access these programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulatory action is not required by 
statute or court order; however, the underlying statutes authorizing 
these policies are the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 
U.S.C. 1921 Establishing a Performance Standard for Authorizing the 
Importation and Interstate Movement of Fruits and Vegetables (0579-
AD71); Concluded 8/24/2018 and 9007 of the 2002 Farm Bill as amended, 7 
U.S.C. 8107.
    Alternatives: The alternative is to continue operating under the 
current existing four regulations for these programs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: At this time an estimated cost is 
not known. The proposed action is expected to reflect current program 
policy and produce the same policy results, but in a more effective 
manner. Anticipated benefits include:
     Improve quality customer experience by streamlining and 
consolidating similar guaranteed loan programs into a client-driven 
consolidated regulation.
     Advance economic development and access to capital by 
reducing regulatory complexities and redundancies.
     Improve operational efficiencies and cross-program 
coordination (oneRD) by enabling staff to learn all RD guaranteed loan 
programs using one regulation
     Enable RD to integrate innovation in the delivery of loan 
guarantees and align with industry lending practices
     Create a regulation that paves the way for modern 
processing and servicing to improve portfolio management
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule..........................   05/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Thomas P. Dickson, Department of Agriculture, Rural 
Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, 
Phone: 202 690-4492, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0572-AC43

BILLING CODE 3410-90-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is one 
of the oldest Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government. 
Commerce's mission is to create the conditions for economic growth and 
opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, 
and environmental stewardship. Commerce has 12 operating units, which 
are responsible for managing a diverse portfolio of programs and 
services, ranging from trade promotion and economic development 
assistance to broadband and the National Weather Service.
    Commerce touches Americans daily, in many ways--making possible the 
daily weather reports and survey research; facilitating technology that 
all of us use in the workplace and in the home each day; supporting the 
development, gathering, and transmission of information essential to 
competitive business; enabling the diversity of companies and goods 
found in America's and the world's marketplace; and supporting 
environmental and economic health for the communities in which 
Americans live.
    Commerce has a clear and compelling vision for itself, for its role 
in the Federal Government, and for its roles supporting the American 
people, now and in the future. To achieve this vision, Commerce works 
in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and workers 
to:
    [square] Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge 
science and technology from advances in

[[Page 57829]]

nanotechnology, to ocean exploration, to broadband deployment, and by 
protecting American innovations through the patent and trademark 
system;
    [square] Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling 
community development and strengthening minority businesses and small 
manufacturers;
    [square] 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;
    [square] Provide effective management and stewardship of our 
nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic 
opportunities; and
    [square] 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, as well as new efforts by the Department to remove 
unnecessary regulatory burdens on external stakeholders.

Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles

    The vast majority of Commerce's programs and activities do not 
involve regulation. Of Commerce's 12 primary operating units, only 
three bureaus will be planning actions that are considered the ``most 
important'' significant pre-regulatory or regulatory actions for FY 
2019. During the next year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) plans to publish five rulemaking actions that are 
designated as Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and 
Security (BIS) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office will 
each publish one rulemaking action designated as Regulatory Plan 
actions. Further information on these actions is provided below.
    Commerce has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance of any 
regulation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, 
or any other suspect category and requires that all regulations be 
written so as to be understandable to those affected by them. The 
Secretary also requires that Commerce afford the public the maximum 
possible opportunity to participate in Departmental rulemakings, even 
where public participation is not required by law.
    Commerce has implemented Executive Order 13771 working through its 
Regulatory Reform Task Force established under Executive Order 13777 to 
identify and prioritize deregulatory actions that each bureau within 
the Department can take to reduce and remove regulatory burdens on 
stakeholders.
    In Fiscal Year 2019, Commerce expects to publish [7] regulatory 
actions and [59] deregulatory actions, far exceeding the requirement 
under Executive Order 13771 to publish two deregulatory actions for 
every one regulatory action. To that end, Commerce may have other 
deregulatory actions to implement that do not currently appear in the 
agenda.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    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.
    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 fisheries; protects marine mammals and Endangered Species Act-
listed marine and anadromous species; and promotes economic development 
of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal States in their 
management of land and ocean resources in their coastal zones, 
including estuarine research reserves; manages 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.
    In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include: 
Rebuilding and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market-based 
tools and ecosystem approaches to management; conserving, protecting, 
and recovering marine mammals and Endangered Species Act-listed marine 
and anadromous species while still allowing for economic and 
recreational opportunities; promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by 
ensuring that economic development is managed in ways that maintain 
biodiversity and long-term productivity for sustained use; and 
modernizing navigation and positioning services. In the environmental 
assessment and prediction area, goals include: Understanding the 
impacts of a changing climate and communicating that understanding to 
government and private sector stakeholders enabling them to adapt; 
continually improving the National Weather Service; implementing 
reliable seasonal and interannual climate forecasts to guide economic 
planning; providing science-based policy advice on options to deal with 
very long-term (decadal to centennial) changes in the environment; and 
advancing and improving short-term warning and forecast services for 
the entire environment.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

[[Page 57830]]

(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 2019, a number of the regulatory and 
deregulatory actions will be significant. The exact number of such 
rulemakings is unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions 
of eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are 
responsible for preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP 
amendments, and for drafting implementing regulations for each managed 
fishery. NOAA issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. 
Once a rulemaking is triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
places stringent deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its 
rulemaking responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic 
highly migratory species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, 
are developed directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
    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.
    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.

Marine Mammal Protection Act

    The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the 
authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under 
U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the 
intentional take of marine mammals. The MMPA allows, upon request, the 
incidental take of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (e.g., oil and gas development, pile driving) within 
a specified geographic region. NMFS authorizes incidental take under 
the MMPA if we find that the taking would be of small numbers, have no 
more than a ``negligible impact'' on those marine mammal species or 
stock, and would not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
availability of the species or stock for ``subsistence'' uses. NMFS 
also initiates rulemakings under the MMPA to establish a management 
regime to reduce marine mammal mortalities and injuries as a result of 
interactions with fisheries. In addition, the MMPA allows NMFS to 
permit the collection of wild animals for scientific research or public 
display or to enhance the survival of a species or stock, and 
established the Marine Mammal Commission, which makes recommendations 
to the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and the Interior and 
other Federal officials on protecting and conserving marine mammals. 
The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to allow for takings 
incidental to commercial fishing operations, to provide certain 
exemptions for subsistence and scientific uses, and to require the 
preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters 
under U.S. jurisdiction.

Endangered Species Act

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the 
conservation of species that are determined to be ``endangered'' or 
``threatened,'' and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these 
species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) to jointly administer the provisions of the ESA. NMFS 
manages marine and ``anadromous'' species, and FWS manages land and 
freshwater species. Together, NMFS and FWS work to protect critically 
imperiled species from extinction. Of the approximately 720 listed 
species found in part or entirely in the United States and its waters, 
NMFS has jurisdiction over nearly 100 species. NMFS' rulemaking actions 
are focused on determining whether any species under its responsibility 
is an endangered or threatened species and whether those species must 
be added to the list of protected species. NMFS is also responsible for 
designating, reviewing, and revising critical habitat for any listed 
species. In addition, under the ESA, Federal agencies consult with NMFS 
on any proposed action authorized, funded, or carried out by that 
agency that may affect listed species or designated critical habitat, 
or that may affect proposed species or critical habitat. These 
interagency consultations are designed to assist Federal agencies in 
fulfilling their duty to ensure Federal actions do not jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species or destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat, while still allowing Federal agencies to fulfill 
their respective missions (e.g., permitting infrastructure projects or 
oil and gas exploration, conducting military readiness activities).

NOAA's Regulatory Plan Actions

    While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the 
level necessary to be included in Commerce's regulatory plan, NMFS is 
undertaking 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.
    Additionally, NMFS is undertaking a series of rulemakings that are 
considered deregulatory, as defined by Executive Order 13771. Such 
actions directly benefit the regulated community by increasing access, 
providing more economic opportunity, reducing costs, and/or increasing 
flexibility. Specific examples of such actions are the Commerce Trusted 
Trader Program and modifications to the Fisheries Finance Program, as 
described below. Other examples include rulemakings implementing 
regional Fishery Management Council actions that alleviate or reduce 
previous requirements.
    1. Commerce Trusted Trader Program (0648-BG51): Under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, importation of fish 
products taken in violation of foreign law and regulation is 
prohibited. To enforce this prohibition, NMFS has implemented the 
Seafood Import Monitoring Program (81 FR 88975,

[[Page 57831]]

December 9, 2016) which requires U.S. importers to report on the origin 
of fish products and to keep supply chain records. The Commerce Trusted 
Trader Program will establish a voluntary program for certified seafood 
importers that provides benefits such as reduced targeting and 
inspections, and enhanced streamlined entry into the United States. The 
program will require that a Commerce Trusted Trader establish a secure 
supply chain and maintain the records necessary to verify the legality 
of all designated product entering into U.S. commerce, but it will 
excuse the Commerce Trusted Trader from entering that data into the 
International Trade Data System prior to entry, as required by Seafood 
Import Monitoring Program. This program is deregulatory in nature 
because it reduces reporting costs at entry and reduces recordkeeping 
costs due to flexibility in archiving.
    2. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act; 
Traceability Information Program for Seafood (0648-BH87): Section 539 
of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2018 (2018 Appropriations Act) directed the Secretary of Commerce 
to ``. . . establish a traceability program for United States inland, 
coastal, and marine aquaculture of shrimp and abalone . . .'' and by 
December 31, 2018 to ``. . . promulgate such regulations as are 
necessary and appropriate to establish and implement the program.'' The 
proposed Traceability Information Program for Seafood (TIPS) would 
establish registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 
domestic, commercial aquaculture producers of shrimp and abalone 
species and products containing those species from the point of 
production to entry into U.S. commerce. TIPS would close the domestic 
reporting and recordkeeping gap and enable NOAA to add imported shrimp 
and abalone to the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), which was 
mandated under the 2018 Appropriations Act and finalized under 50 CFR 
300.324 in a Final Rule (0648-BH89; 83 FR 17762) published April 24, 
2018.
    3. Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related 
to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico (0648-BB38): The Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the ``take'' (e.g., behavioral 
harassment, injury, or mortality) of marine mammals with certain 
exceptions, including through the issuance of incidental take 
authorizations. Where there is a reasonable likelihood of an activity 
resulting in the take of marine mammals--as is the case for certain 
methods of geophysical exploration, including the use of airgun arrays 
(i.e., ``seismic surveys'')--action proponents must ensure that take 
occurs in a lawful manner. However, there has not previously been any 
analysis of industry survey activities in the Gulf of Mexico conducted 
pursuant to requirements of MMPA, and industry operators have been, and 
currently are, conducting their work without MMPA incidental take 
authorizations. In support of the oil and gas industry, the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management has requested 5-year incidental take 
regulations, which would provide a regulatory framework under which 
individual companies could apply for project-specific Letters of 
Authorization. Providing for industry compliance with the MMPA through 
the requested regulatory framework, versus companies pursuing 
individual authorizations, would be the most efficient way to achieve 
such compliance for both industry and for NMFS, and would provide 
regulatory certainty for industry operators.
    4. Modify the Fisheries Financing Program To Allow the Financing of 
New Replacement Fishing Vessel Construction in Limited Access Fisheries 
(0648-BH82): In 2016, Congress passed section 302 of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2015 which included specific authority for the 
Fisheries Finance Program to finance the construction of fishing 
vessels in a fishery that is federally managed under a limited access 
system. Replacement of aged fishing vessels in managed fisheries will 
result in more efficient use of fisheries, promote safety at sea, and 
improve environmental operations of the fishing industry. This rule 
will provide a source of funding to recapitalize and modernize an aged 
fishing fleet that will help ensure the continuation of the economic 
benefits provided by the nation's commercial fishing fleet.
    5. Magnuson-Stevens Act; Fishery Management Councils; Financial 
Disclosure and Recusal (0648-BH73): NMFS received input from regional 
Fishery Management Councils calling for further guidance and 
clarification of financial disclosure requirements of Council members 
and the regulatory procedures to make determinations on voting recusals 
of Council members. This rule proposes changes to the regulations that 
address disclosure of financial interests by, and voting recusal of, 
Council members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The regulatory 
changes are needed to provide the guidance for (1) consistency and 
transparency in the calculation of a Council member's financial 
interests; (2) determining whether a close causal link exists between a 
Council decision and a benefit to a Council member's financial 
interest; and (3) establishing regional procedures for preparing and 
issuing recusal determinations. This proposed rule is intended to 
improve regulations implementing the statutory requirements governing 
disclosure of financial interests and voting recusal at section 302(j) 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).

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.

Major Programs and Activities

    BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration 
Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national 
security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also 
regulates U.S. persons' participation in certain boycotts administered 
by foreign governments. The National Security Industrial Base 
Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and 
allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require 
reporting of foreign Government-imposed offsets in defense sales, 
provide for surveys to assess the capabilities of the industrial base 
to support the national defense and address the effect of imports on 
the defense industrial base. The Chemical Weapons Convention 
Regulations implement declaration, reporting, and on-site inspection 
requirements in the private sector necessary to meet United States 
treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The 
Additional Protocol Regulations implement similar requirements with 
respect to an agreement between the United States and the International 
Atomic Energy Agency.
    BIS also has an enforcement component with nine offices covering 
the United States. BIS export control officers are also stationed at 
several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S. 
Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in 
export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government 
efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and

[[Page 57832]]

to promote effective export controls through cooperation with other 
Governments

BIS' Regulatory Plan Action

    BIS maintains the EAR, including the Commerce Control List (CCL). 
The CCL describes commodities, software, and technology that are 
subject to licensing requirements for specific reasons for control. The 
Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), 
maintains the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 
including the United States Munitions List (USML), which describes 
defense articles subject to State's licensing jurisdiction.
    In Fiscal Year 2019, BIS plans to publish a final rule describing 
how articles the President has determined no longer warrant control 
under USML Category I (Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat 
Shotguns), Category II (Guns and Armament), and Category III 
(Ammunition/Ordnance) would be controlled on the CCL and by the EAR. 
This final rule will be published in conjunction with a DDTC final rule 
that would amend the list of articles controlled by those USML 
Categories to describe more precisely items warranting continued 
control on that list.
    The changes described in these final rules will be based on a 
review of those categories by the Department of Defense, which worked 
with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing the amendments. 
As with the proposed rules that were published in Fiscal Year 2018, the 
review for the final rule will be focused on ensuring that the agencies 
have identified the types of articles that are now controlled on the 
USML that are either (i) inherently military and otherwise warrant 
control on the USML or (ii) if of a type common to non-military 
firearms applications, possess parameters or characteristics that 
provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United 
States, and are almost exclusively available from the United States. If 
an article satisfies one or both of those criteria, the article will 
remain on the USML. If an article does not satisfy either criterion, it 
will be identified in the new Export Control Classification Numbers 
(ECCNs) included in the BIS proposed rule. Thus, the scope of the items 
that will be described in the final rule will essentially be commercial 
items widely available in retail outlets and less sensitive military 
items.
    The firearms and other items described in the proposed rule are 
widely used for sporting applications, and BIS will not ``de-control'' 
these items in the final rule. BIS would require licenses to export or 
reexport to any country a firearm or other weapon that would be added 
to the CCL. Rather than decontrolling firearms and other items, BIS, 
working with the Departments of Defense and State, is trying to reduce 
the procedural burdens and costs of export compliance on the U.S. 
firearms industry while allowing the U.S. Government to control 
firearms appropriately and to make better use of its export control 
resources.

United States Patent Trademark Office

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) mission is 
to foster innovation, competitiveness and economic growth, domestically 
and abroad by delivering high quality and timely examination of patent 
and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international 
intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property 
information and education worldwide.

Major Programs and Activities

    USPTO is the Federal agency for granting U.S. patents and 
registering trademarks. In doing this, the USPTO fulfills the mandate 
of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution that the 
legislative branch ``promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, 
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive 
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' The USPTO 
registers trademarks based on the commerce clause of the Constitution 
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Under this system of protection, 
American industry has flourished. New products have been invented, new 
uses for old ones discovered, and employment opportunities created for 
millions of Americans. The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy 
depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and 
investments in innovation and creativity. The continued demand for 
patents and trademarks underscores the ingenuity of American inventors 
and entrepreneurs. The USPTO is at the cutting edge of the nation's 
technological progress and achievement.
    The USPTO advises the President of the United States, the Secretary 
of Commerce, and U.S. government agencies on intellectual property (IP) 
policy, protection, and enforcement; and promotes the stronger and more 
effective IP protection around the world. The USPTO furthers effective 
IP protection for U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs worldwide by 
working with other agencies to secure strong IP provisions in free 
trade and other international agreements. It also provides training, 
education, and capacity building programs designed to foster respect 
for IP and encourage the development of strong IP enforcement regimes 
by U.S. trading partners. USPTO administers regulations located at 
title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerning its patent and 
trademark services, and the other functions it performs.

USPTO's Regulatory Plan Action

    NPRM: Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees (RIN 0651-AD31): The Leahy-
Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, provided USPTO with 
the authority to set and adjust its fees for patent and trademark 
services. Since then, USPTO has conducted an internal biennial fee 
review, in which it undertook internal consideration of the current fee 
structure, and considered ways that the structure might be improved, 
including rulemaking pursuant to the USPTO's fee setting authority. 
This fee review process involves public outreach, including, as 
required by the Act, public hearings held by the USPTO's Public 
Advisory Committees, as well as public comment and other outreach to 
the user community and public in general. In 2019, the USPTO 
anticipates publishing an NPRM proposing the setting and adjusting of 
patent fees. The USPTO will set and adjust Patent fee amounts to 
provide the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to 
recover its aggregate cost of operations while helping the Office 
maintain a sustainable funding model, reduce the current patent 
application backlog, decrease patent pendency, improve quality, and 
upgrade the Office's business information technology capability and 
infrastructure.

DOC--BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY (BIS)

Final Rule Stage

16. Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations: Control of 
Firearms and Related Articles the President Determines No Longer 
Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 15 U.S.C. 
1824a; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 
U.S.C. 6004; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; 30 U.S.C. 185(s); 
30 U.S.C. 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C.

[[Page 57833]]

1354; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. app 
2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. app 5; E.O. 12058; E.O. 12851; E.O. 12854; E.O. 
12918; E.O. 12938; E.O. 12947; E.O. 13020; E.O. 13026; E.O. 13099; E.O. 
13222; E.O. 13224; E.O. 13338; E.O. 13637; Pub. L. 108-11
    CFR Citation: 15 CFR 740; 15 CFR 742; 15 CFR 774; 15 CFR 736; 15 
CFR 743; 15 CFR 744; 15 CFR 746; 15 CFR 748; 15 CFR 758; 15 CFR 762; 15 
CFR 772.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule describes how articles the President determines 
no longer warrant control under United States Munitions List (USML) 
Category I-Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns; 
Category II-Guns and Armament; and Category III-Ammunition/Ordnance 
would be controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL). This rule will 
be published simultaneously with a proposed rule by the Department of 
State that would revise Categories I, II, and III of the USML to 
describe more precisely the articles warranting continued control on 
that list. This rule also would reorganize and renumber entries 
currently on the CCL that control shotguns and certain firearms related 
items to place all firearms related entries close to each other that 
list.
    Statement of Need: This final rule is needed to ensure appropriate 
controls would be in place on firearms and related items determined to 
no longer warrant control under the United States Munitions List that 
would be moved to the Commerce Control List (CCL). This final rule 
describes how articles the President determines no longer warrant 
control under United States Munitions List (USML) Category I Firearms, 
Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns; Category II Guns and 
Armament; and Category III Ammunition/Ordnance, would be controlled on 
the Commerce Control List (CCL) and by the Export Administration 
Regulations (EAR). This rule is being published in conjunction with a 
proposed rule from the Department of State, Directorate of Defense 
Trade Controls, which would amend the list of articles controlled by 
USML Category I (Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns), 
Category II (Guns and Armament), and Category III (Ammunition/Ordnance) 
of the USML to describe more precisely items warranting continued 
control on that list.
    The changes described in this rule and in the State Department's 
companion rule on Categories I, II, and III of the USML are based on a 
review of those categories by the Department of Defense, which worked 
with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing the amendments. 
The review was focused on identifying the types of articles that are 
now controlled on the USML that are either (i) inherently military and 
otherwise warrant control on the USML or (ii) if of a type common to 
non-military firearms applications, possess parameters or 
characteristics that provide a critical military or intelligence 
advantage to the United States, and are almost exclusively available 
from the United States. If an article satisfies one or both of those 
criteria, the article remains on the USML. If an article does not 
satisfy either criterion, it has been identified in the new Export 
Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) included in this proposed rule. 
Thus, the scope of the items described in this proposed rule is 
essentially commercial items widely available in retail outlets and 
less sensitive military items.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This action is taken pursuant to BIS' 
authority under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which 
regulate exports and reexports to protect national security, foreign 
policy, and short supply interests. BIS maintains the EAR, which 
includes the Commerce Control List (CCL), which describes commodities, 
software, and technology that are subject to licensing requirements for 
specific reasons for control.
    Alternatives: Take no action in order to maintain the status quo by 
not revising USML Categories I, II, and III and not making the needed 
conforming changes under the EAR. This alternative was mentioned by 
some of the public commenters in response to the proposed rule 
published by BIS on May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24166). BIS will evaluate this 
(take no action) alternative suggested by some of the commenters, as 
well as all other comments received on the May 24 proposed rule, when 
drafting the final rule. The rationale provided in the May 24 proposed 
rule already addressed why maintaining the status quo was not 
warranted, but BIS will further address these comments in the final 
rule. BIS will also address the comments that were supportive of the 
May 24 proposed rule that agreed with the Departments of Commerce and 
State that the items described in the two rules reflected what items 
should be retained on the USML and what items should be moved to the 
CCL.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This final rule involves four 
collections currently approved by OMB under these BIS collections and 
control numbers: Simplified Network Application Processing System 
(control number 0694-0088), which includes, among other things, license 
applications; License Exceptions and Exclusions (control number 0694-
0137); Import Certificates and End-User Certificates (control number 
0694-0093); Five Year Records Retention Period (control number 0694-
0096); and the U.S. Census Bureau collection for the Automated Export 
System (AES) Program (control number 0607-0152). This final rule would 
affect the information collection, under control number 0694-0088, 
associated with the multi-purpose application for export licenses. This 
collection carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or 
electronic submission for a burden of 31,833 hours. BIS believes that 
the combined effect of all rules to be published adding items removed 
from the ITAR to the EAR that would increase the number of license 
applications to be submitted by approximately 30,000 annually, 
resulting in an increase in burden hours of 21,900 (30,000 transactions 
at 43.8 minutes each) under this control number. For those items in 
USML Categories I, II and III that would move by this rule to the CCL, 
the State Department estimates that 10,000 applicants annually will 
move from the USML to the CCL. BIS estimates that 6,000 of the 10,000 
applicants would require licenses under the EAR, resulting in a burden 
of 4,380 hours under this control number. Those companies are currently 
using the State Department's forms associated with OMB Control No. 
1405-0003 for which the burden estimate is 1 hour per submission, which 
for 10,000 applications results in a burden of 10,000 hours. Thus, 
subtracting the BIS burden hours of 4,380 from the State Department 
burden hours of 10,000, the burden would be reduced by 5,620 hours. For 
purposes of E.O. 13771 of January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339), the Department 
of State and Department of Commerce final rules are expected to be net 
deregulatory actions. The Departments of State and Commerce for 
purposes of E.O. 13771 have agreed to equally share the cost burden 
reductions that would result from the publication of these two integral 
regulatory actions. The Department of State would receive 50% and the 
Department of Commerce would receive 50% for purposes of calculating 
the deregulatory benefit of these two integral regulatory actions. For 
purposes of the Department of Commerce, the net deregulatory actions 
would result in a permanent and recurring cost savings of $1,250,000 
per

[[Page 57834]]

year, and a reduction in burden hours by 2,810 hours. The reduction in 
burden hours by 2,810 would result in an additional cost savings of 
$126,281 to the exporting public. Therefore, the total dollar cost 
savings would be $1,376,281 for purposes of E.O. 13771 for the 
Department of Commerce.
    Risks: This final rule must be published concurrently with the 
Department of State final rule that would revise USML Categories I, II, 
and II, to provide for appropriate controls on firearms and related 
items determined to no longer warrant control under the United States 
Munitions List (USML) that would be moved to the Commerce Control List 
(CCL) under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). If this rule 
were not published, entities would not benefit from simpler license 
application procedures and reduced (or eliminated) registration fees 
based on the transfer of jurisdiction of the items described in the 
rule. Thus, entities would not benefit from reduced administrative 
costs associated with EAR jurisdiction.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/24/18  83 FR 24166
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/09/18  83 FR 24166
Final Action........................   04/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Timothy Mooney, Export Policy Analyst, Department 
of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, 14th Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202 482-3371, Fax: 
202 482-3355, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0694-AF17, Merged with 0694-AF48, Merged 
with 0694-AF49
    RIN: 0694-AF47

DOC--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)

Proposed Rule Stage

17. Magnuson-Stevens Act; Fishery Management Councils; Financial 
Disclosure and Recusal

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 600.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Current regulations require that fishery management 
council members disclose any financial interest in harvesting, 
processing, lobbying, advocacy, or marketing activity that is being, or 
will be, undertaken within any fishery over which the Fishery 
Management Council (Council) concerned has jurisdiction. Furthermore, 
current implementing regulations also require the voting recusal of an 
appointed Council member when a Council decision would have a 
significant and predictable effect on the member's financial interests. 
NMFS received input from the Fishery Management Council Coordination 
Committee, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Western 
Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the New England Fishery 
Management Council all calling for further guidance and clarification 
of financial disclosure requirements of Council members and the 
regulatory procedures to make determinations on voting recusals of 
Council members. This proposed action would articulate the guidance 
necessary to: Provide consistency and transparency in the calculation 
of a Council member's financial interests; provide clarity consistent 
with statutory language to ensure that any recusal is based on a close 
causal link between a Council decision and a benefit to a Council 
member's financial interest; and establish regional procedures for 
preparing and issuing recusal determinations.
    Statement of Need: NMFS received input from regional Fishery 
Management Councils calling for further guidance and clarification of 
financial disclosure requirements of Council members and the regulatory 
procedures to make determinations on voting recusals of Council 
members. This proposed rule makes changes to the regulations that 
address disclosure of financial interests by, and voting recusal of, 
Council members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The regulatory 
changes are needed to provide the guidance for (1) consistency and 
transparency in the calculation of a Council member's financial 
interests; (2) determining whether a close causal link exists between a 
Council decision and a benefit to a Council members financial interest; 
and (3) establishing regional procedures for preparing and issuing 
recusal determinations. This proposed rule is intended to improve 
regulations implementing the statutory requirements governing 
disclosure of financial interests and voting recusal at section 302(j) 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act.
    Alternatives: The alternatives are (1) the status quo (keep the 
regulatory scheme as it currently is) and (2) update the regulations to 
provide consistency, transparency, and clarity in the regulations and 
to establish regional procedures for preparing and issuing recusal 
determinations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is administrative in 
nature. It does not directly regulate a particular fishery. Instead, it 
provides guidance and improved clarity about implementing existing 
requirements. Because the proposed rule will 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. 
This action may indirectly result in positive net economic benefits in 
the long-term by improving transparency and providing increased 
predictability about the voting procedures of the Councils. This 
increased transparency provides a net benefit to the nation.
    Risks: Because the regulations lack guidance on several key aspects 
of reaching a recusal determination, and provide little guidance on the 
procedures to be followed when preparing and issuing a recusal 
determination, designated officials have developed differing practices 
over time to fill in these regulatory gaps and to address new factual 
circumstances that have arisen. The risk in not updating the 
regulations would be a continuation of the lack of clarity and 
consistency in the implementation of the current regulations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362, Silver Spring, MD 
20910, Phone: 301 713-2334, Fax: 301 713-0596, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0648-BH73


[[Page 57835]]



DOC--NOAA

18. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act; 
Traceability Information Program for Seafood

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; Pub. L. 115-141
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 698.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 31, 2018, Sec 539 of 
H.R. 1625--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018.
    Abstract: On December 9, 2016, NMFS issued a final rule that 
established a risk-based traceability program to track seafood from 
harvest to entry into U.S. commerce. The final rule included, for 
designated priority fish species, import permitting and reporting 
requirements to provide for traceability of seafood products offered 
for entry into the U.S. supply chain, and to ensure that these products 
were lawfully acquired and are properly represented. Shrimp and abalone 
products were included in the final rule to implement the Seafood 
Import Monitoring Program, but compliance with Seafood Import 
Monitoring Program requirements for those species was stayed 
indefinitely due to the disparity between Federal reporting programs 
for domestic aquaculture of shrimp and abalone products relative to the 
requirements that would apply to imports under Seafood Import 
Monitoring Program. In Section 539 of the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2018, Congress mandated lifting the stay on inclusion of shrimp 
and abalone in Seafood Import Monitoring Program and authorized the 
Secretary of Commerce to require comparable reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for domestic aquaculture of shrimp and abalone. This 
rulemaking would establish permitting, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for domestic producers of shrimp and abalone from the 
point of production to entry into commerce.
    Statement of Need: Section 539 of the Commerce, Justice, Science, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (2018 Appropriations Act) 
directed the Secretary of Commerce to ``establish a traceability 
program for United States inland, coastal, and marine aquaculture of 
shrimp and abalone'' and by December 31, 2018 to ``promulgate such 
regulations as are necessary and appropriate to establish and implement 
the program.'' The proposed Traceability Information Program for 
Seafood (TIPS) would establish registration, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for domestic, commercial aquaculture 
producers of shrimp and abalone species and products containing those 
species from the point of production to entry into U.S. commerce. TIPS 
would close the domestic reporting and recordkeeping gap and enable 
NOAA to add imported shrimp and abalone to the Seafood Import 
Monitoring Program (SIMP), which was mandated under the 2018 
Appropriations Act and finalized under 50 CFR 300.324 in a final rule 
(0648-BH89; 83 FR 17762) published April 24, 2018.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act; Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2018.
    Alternatives: Coextensive with the scope of SIMP, the Traceability 
Information Program for Seafood would establish a domestic traceability 
program for aquaculture shrimp and abalone traces fish and fish 
products from production to entry into U.S. commerce. NMFS will solicit 
public input on alternatives to the registration, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for U.S. shrimp and abalone aquaculture 
producers in the proposed rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs of the Traceability 
Information Program for Seafood, as proposed, would include a small 
registration fee and labor associated with reporting harvest 
information to NMFS as well as compliance with any requests for audit 
or inspection. The Traceability Information Program for Seafood would 
enable NMFS to determine the origin of the domestic aquaculture shrimp 
and abalone products and confirm that they were lawfully produced. The 
Traceability Information Program for Seafood will close the domestic 
reporting and recordkeeping gap and enable NMFS to add imported shrimp 
and abalone to the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, which will 
prevent illegally harvested or misrepresented seafood products from 
entering U.S. commerce, thereby leveling the playing field for law 
abiding shrimp and abalone producers in the U.S. and around the world.
    Risks: Failure to implement the Traceability Information Program 
for Seafood would violate Section 539 of the 2018 Appropriations Act 
and likely provoke challenges to the Seafood Import Monitoring Program 
in international trade fora.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Agency Contact: John Henderschedt, Director, Office for 
International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, Department of Commerce, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Room 10362, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8314, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0648-BF09
    RIN: 0648-BH87

DOC--NOAA

Final Rule Stage

19. Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals 
Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in 
the Gulf of Mexico

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 217.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service is taking this 
action in response to an October 17, 2016 petition from the U.S. 
Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 
to promulgate regulations governing the authorization of take of marine 
mammals incidental to oil and gas industry geophysical surveys 
conducted in support of hydrocarbon exploration and development on the 
Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico from approximately 2018 
through 2023.
    Statement of Need: The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
prohibits the ``take'' (e.g., behavioral harassment, injury, or 
mortality) of marine mammals with certain exceptions, including through 
the issuance of incidental take authorizations. Where there is a 
reasonable likelihood of an activity resulting in the take of marine 
mammals--as is the case for certain methods of geophysical exploration, 
including the use of airgun arrays (i.e., ``seismic surveys'')--action 
proponents must ensure that take occurs in a lawful

[[Page 57836]]

manner. However, there has not previously been any analysis of industry 
survey activities in the Gulf of Mexico conducted pursuant to 
requirements of MMPA, and industry operators have been, and currently 
are, conducting their work without MMPA incidental take authorizations. 
In support of the oil and gas industry, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management has requested 5-year incidental take regulations, which 
would provide a regulatory framework under which individual companies 
could apply for project-specific Letters of Authorization. Providing 
for industry compliance with the MMPA through the requested regulatory 
framework, versus companies pursuing individual authorizations, would 
be the most efficient way to achieve such compliance for both industry 
and for NMFS, and would provide regulatory certainty for industry 
operators.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Marine Mammal Protection Act.
    Alternatives: The regulatory impact analysis considers several 
alternatives with varying amounts of required mitigation by industry 
authorization-holders. The proposed rule seeks comment on the extent to 
which certain areas should be closed to geophysical activity, the 
distance at which operators must shut down upon detection of specified 
species of whales, and the mitigation requirements concerning large 
dolphins.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule would include mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements, as required by the MMPA. The 
rule analyzes the impacts against two baselines--the current mitigation 
requirements as stipulated in a settlement agreement currently in 
effect until November 1, 2018, and the requirements prior to the 
settlement agreement. Compared to the settlement agreement, the 
annualized impacts of the proposed rule are estimated to achieve a cost 
savings of $11 million to $147 million. Compared to the pre-settlement 
agreement baseline the annualized costs are estimated to range from $49 
million to $182 million. The rule would also result in certain non-
monetized benefits. The lessened risk of harm to marine mammals 
afforded by this rule (pursuant to the requirements of the MMPA) would 
benefit the regional economic value of marine mammals via tourism and 
recreation to some extent, as mitigation measures applied to 
geophysical survey activities in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) region are 
expected to benefit the marine mammal populations that support this 
economic activity in the GOM. The rule would also afford significant 
benefit to the regulated industry by providing an efficient framework 
within which compliance with the MMPA, and the attendant regulatory 
certainty, may be achieved. Cost savings may be generated in particular 
by the reduced administrative effort required to obtain an LOA under 
the framework established by a rule compared to what would be required 
to obtain an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) under section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. Absent the rule, survey operators in the GOM 
would likely be required to apply for an IHA. Although not monetized, 
NMFSs analysis indicates that the upfront work associated with the rule 
(e.g., analyses, modeling, process for obtaining LOA) would likely save 
significant time and money for operators.
    Risks: Absent the rule, oil and gas industry operators would face a 
highly uncertain regulatory environment due to the imminent threat of 
litigation. BOEM currently issues permits under a stay of ongoing 
litigation; in the absence of the rule, the litigation would continue. 
The IHA application process that would be available to companies would 
be more expensive and time-consuming.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/22/18  83 FR 29212
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/21/18  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected 
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400.
    RIN: 0648-BB38

DOC--NOAA

20. Commerce Trusted Trader Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will establish a voluntary Commerce Trusted 
Trader Program for importers, aiming to provide benefits such as 
reduced targeting and inspections and enhanced streamlined entry into 
the United States for certified importers. Specifically, this rule 
would establish the criteria required of a Commerce Trusted Trader, and 
identify specifically how the program will be monitored and by whom. It 
will require that a Commerce Trusted Trader establish a secure supply 
chain and maintain the records necessary to verify the legality of all 
designated product entering into U.S. commerce, but will excuse the 
Commerce Trusted Trader from entering that data into the International 
Trade Data System prior to entry, as required by Seafood Import 
Monitoring Program (finalized on December 9, 2016). The rule will 
identify the benefits available to a Commerce Trusted Trader, detail 
the application process, and specify how the Commerce Trusted Trader 
will be audited by third-party entities while the overall program will 
be monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
    Statement of Need: Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act, importation of fish products taken in violation of 
foreign law and regulation is prohibited. To enforce this prohibition, 
NMFS has implemented the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) (81 
FR 88975, December 9, 2016) which requires U.S. importers to report on 
the origin of fish products and to keep supply chain records. The 
Commerce Trusted Trader Program was recommended by an interagency 
working group to reduce the burden of SIMP compliance for importers 
with secure supply chains by reducing reporting requirements for entry 
into U.S. commerce and allowing more flexible approaches to retaining 
supply chain records.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act.
    Alternatives: SIMP is aimed at preventing the infiltration of 
illegal fish products into the U.S. market. Alternatives to reduce the 
reporting and recordkeeping burden for U.S. importers were considered 
during the course of that rulemaking. Collecting less information at 
import about the origin of products would increase the likelihood of 
illegal products entering the supply chain. However, working with 
individual traders to secure the supply chain will be an economical 
approach to ensure that illegal products are precluded and records will 
be kept as needed for post-entry audits. The Commerce Trusted Trader 
Program is designed to allow those entities who

[[Page 57837]]

demonstrate a robust traceability and internal control system, and 
submit to annual third-party audits of their system, to benefit from 
reduced reporting requirements of SIMP species at the time of entry as 
well as flexibility in how they maintain the complete chain of custody 
records within their secure supply chain.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Commerce Trusted Trader Program, 
as proposed, will result in an estimated industry-wide savings between 
$0.50 and $1.21 million annually. Anticipated costs are minimal and 
include a one-time application fee of $30.00 and associated labor costs 
of developing application materials. Commerce Trusted Traders will 
benefit from the reduced reporting costs at entry and reduced 
recordkeeping costs due to flexibility in archiving chain of custody 
records, but incur costs to perform an annual third-party audit of 
adherence to their Compliance Plan.
    Risks: While there is no risk of not implementing a Commerce 
Trusted Trader Program, not doing so would deprive industry of 
potentially significant cost savings for an existing regulatory 
program.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/17/18  83 FR 2412
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/19/18  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: John Henderschedt, Director, Office for 
International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, Department of Commerce, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Room 10362, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8314, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0648-BF09
    RIN: 0648-BG51

DOC--PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (PTO)

Proposed Rule Stage

21. Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-29
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The USPTO operates like a business in that it fulfills 
requests for intellectual property products and services that are paid 
for by users of those services. The USPTO takes this action to set and 
adjusts patent fee amounts to provide sufficient aggregate revenue to 
cover aggregate cost of operations.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of this rule is to set and adjust 
patent fee amounts to provide sufficient aggregate revenue to cover the 
agency's aggregate cost of operations. To this end, this rule creates 
new or changes existing fees for patent services, and does so without 
imposing any new costs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), 
enacted in 2011, provided USPTO with the authority to set and adjust 
its fees for patent and trademark services. Since then, USPTO has 
conducted an internal biennial fee review, in which it undertook 
internal consideration of the current fee structure, and considered 
ways that the structure might be improved, including rulemaking 
pursuant to the USPTO's fee setting authority. This fee review process 
involves public outreach, including, as required by the Act, public 
hearings held by the USPTO's Public Advisory Committees, as well as 
public comment and other outreach to the user community and public in 
general.
    Alternatives: This rulemaking action is currently in development 
and alternatives have not yet been determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rulemaking action is currently 
in development and aggregate annual economic impacts have not yet been 
determined. It is anticipated that the final rule would become 
effective with the new fee schedule in 2020.
    Risks: The USPTO will set and adjust Patent fee amounts to provide 
the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its 
aggregate cost of operations while helping the Office maintain a 
sustainable funding model, reduce the current patent application 
backlog, decrease patent pendency, improve quality, and upgrade the 
Office's business information technology capability and infrastructure. 
Therefore, one risk of taking no action could be that USPTO might not 
be able to recover its aggregate costs of operations in the long run.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/00/19  .......................
Final Action........................   08/00/20  .......................
Final Action Effective..............   10/00/20  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Brendan Hourigan, Director, Office of Planning and 
Budget, Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Phone: 571 272-8966, Fax: 571 273-
8966, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0651-AD31

BILLING CODE 3510-12-P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Background

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department, 
employing over 1.3 million military personnel and 742,000 civilians 
with operations all over the world. DoD's enduring mission is to 
provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect 
the security of our nation. In support of this mission, DoD adheres to 
a strategy where a more lethal force, strong alliances and 
partnerships, American technological innovation, and a culture of 
performance will generate a decisive and sustained United States 
military advantage. Because of this expansive and diversified mission 
and reach, DoD regulations can address a broad range of matters and 
have an impact on varied members of the public, as well as a multitude 
of other federal agencies.
    The regulatory and deregulatory actions identified in this 
Regulatory Plan embody the core of DoD's regulatory priorities for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and help support or impact the Secretary's three 
lines of efforts to: (1) Build a more lethal force; (2) strengthen 
alliances and attract new partners; and (3) reform the Department for 
greater performance and affordability. These actions originate within 
three of DoD's

[[Page 57838]]

main regulatory components--the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)), which is 
responsible for contracting and procurement policy, the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), 
which supports troop readiness and health affairs, and the Department 
of the Army through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 
which provides engineering services to support the national interest. 
The missions of these offices are discussed more fully below.

DoD's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles

    The Department's regulatory program strives to be responsive, 
efficient, and transparent. DoD adheres to the general principles set 
forth in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' dated October 4, 1993, by promulgating only those regulations 
that are required by law, necessary to interpret the law, or are made 
necessary by compelling public need. By following this regulatory 
philosophy, the Department's regulatory program also compliments and 
advances the Secretary's third line of effort--to reform the Department 
for greater performance and affordability.
    The Department is also fully committed to implementing and 
sustaining regulatory reform in accordance with Executive Order 13771, 
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' dated January 
30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 
Agenda,'' dated February 24, 2017. These reform efforts support DoD's 
goals to eliminate outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective regulations; 
account for the currency and legitimacy of each of the Department's 
regulations; and ultimately reduce regulatory burden and costs placed 
on the American people. Specifically in support of DoD's reform 
efforts, DoD appointed a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the 
implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies. DoD also 
established a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to review and 
evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the Agency 
head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent 
with applicable law.
    DoD is implementing its reform efforts in three general phases:
     Phase I: Utilizing the Task Force, assess all 716 
existing, codified DoD regulations to include 350 solicitation 
provisions and contract clauses contained in the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The Task Force will present 
recommendations for the repeal, replacement, or modification to the 
Secretary of Defense on a quarterly basis through the end of December 
2018.
     Phase II: Implementing the approved recommendations. 
Implementation requires drafting, internal coordination, review by the 
Office of Management and Budget, and providing for notice and comment, 
as required by law.
     Phase III: Incorporating into its policies a requirement 
for components to sustain review of both new regulatory actions and 
existing regulations.
    In FY 2019, based primarily on the ongoing work of the Task Force, 
DoD expects to publish more deregulatory actions than regulatory 
actions. Exact figures are not yet available as the regulations 
reported in this edition of the Unified Agenda are still under 
evaluation for classification under Executive Order 13771. 
Additionally, the Task Force will continue working to execute 
directives under Executive Orders 13783 and 13807 to streamline its 
regulatory process and permitting reviews.
    In addition to reform efforts, DoD is also mindful of the 
importance of international regulatory cooperation, consistent with 
domestic law and trade policy, as described in Executive Order 13609, 
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (May 1, 2012). For 
example, DoD, along with the Departments of State and Commerce, engages 
with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear Suppliers 
Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology Control Regime through 
which the international community develops a common list of items that 
should be subject to export controls. DoD has been a key participant in 
the Administration's Export Control Reform effort that resulted in a 
complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List and fundamental changes to 
the Commerce Control List. New controls have facilitated transfers of 
goods and technologies to allies and partners while helping prevent 
transfers to countries of national security and proliferation concern. 
In this context, DoD will continue to assess new and emerging 
technologies to ensure items that provide critical military and 
intelligence capabilities are properly controlled on international 
export control regime lists.

DoD Priority Regulatory Actions

    As stated above, OUSD (A&S), OUSD (P&R), and the Department of the 
Army will be planning actions that are considered the most important 
significant DoD regulatory actions for FY 2019. During the next year, 
these DoD Components plan to publish 15 rulemaking actions that are 
designated as significant actions. Further information on these actions 
is provided below.

OUSD (A&S)/Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC)

    DPC is responsible for all contracting and procurement policy 
matters in the Department and uses the Defense Acquisition Regulations 
System (DARS) to develop and maintain acquisition rules and to 
facilitate the acquisition workforce as they acquire goods and 
services. For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rules:
    Rulemakings that are expected to have high net benefits well in 
excess of costs.
    Rulemakings that promote Open Government and use disclosure as a 
regulatory tool.

Brand Name or Equal (DFARS Case 2017-D040). RIN: 0750-AJ50

    This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to implement section 888 of 
the NDAA for FY 2017. Section 888 requires DoD to justify when a 
solicitation includes ``brand name or equal'' specifications, which 
could limit competition by unnecessarily restricting offerors to a 
limited set of specifications. Currently, if the Government intends to 
procure specific ``brand name'' products, the contracting officer must 
prepare a justification and obtain the appropriate approval based on 
the estimated dollar value of the contracts. However, a justification 
is not required to use ``brand name or equal'' descriptions in a 
solicitation. To implement section 888, this rule proposes to amend the 
DFARS to require contracting officers to obtain an approval of a 
justification for use of ``brand name or equal'' descriptions, which 
would then be posted with the covered solicitation. It is expected that 
this rule will both promote transparency with industry by disclosing 
the basis for the Government's decision to limit competition and, in 
turn, present an opportunity to increase competition.
    Rulemakings that streamline regulations and reduce unjustified 
burdens.

Contractor Purchasing System Review Threshold (DFARS Case 2017-D038). 
RIN: 0750-AJ48

    This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to raise the threshold for 
determining when a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR) is 
required. The Government will conduct

[[Page 57839]]

a CPRS in order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which 
a prime contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government 
policy when subcontracting. Currently, if a prime contractor's sales to 
the Government are expected to exceed $25 million during the next 12 
months, then the administrative contracting officer (ACO) will 
determine whether there is a need for a CPSR. This rule proposes to 
amend the DFARS to raise the dollar threshold at which an ACO makes the 
determination to conduct a CPSR to $50 million for DoD contracts. It is 
expected that this rule may reduce the number of CPSRs conducted by DoD 
and, in turn, alleviate the burden on contractors associated with 
participating in the CPSR.
    Rules modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing regulations 
making DoD's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in 
achieving regulatory objectives.

Submission of Summary Subcontract Reports (DFARS Case 2017-D005). RIN: 
0750-AJ42

    This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to clarify the entity to 
which contractors submit Summary Subcontract Reports in the Electronic 
Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) and to clarify the entity that 
acknowledges receipt of, or rejects, the reports in eSRS. This rule 
streamlines the submission and review of Summary Subcontract Reports 
(SSRs) for DoD contractors and brings the DFARS into compliance with 
changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Instead of submitting 
multiple SSRs to various departments and agencies within DoD, 
contractors with individual subcontracting plans will submit a single, 
consolidated SSR in eSRS at the DoD level. The consolidated SSR will be 
acknowledged or rejected in eSRS at the DoD level.

OUSD (P&R)/Assistance Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs

    The mission of DoD's health program is to enhance the Department of 
Defense and our Nation's security by providing health support for the 
full range of military operations and sustaining the health of all 
those entrusted to our care by creating a world-class health care 
system that supports the military mission by fostering, protecting, 
sustaining and restoring health.
    TRICARE is the health care program for uniformed service members 
including active duty and retired members of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air 
Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast Guard, the Commissioned 
Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and the Commissioned Corps of 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and their families 
around the world. It serves 9.5 million individuals worldwide. It 
continues to offer an increasingly integrated and comprehensive health 
care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits and programs in a 
manner consistent with the law, industry standard of care, and best 
practices, to meet the changing needs of its beneficiaries. The 
program's goal is to increase access to health care services, improve 
health care quality, and control health care costs.
    For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rule:

Establishment of TRICARE Select and Other TRICARE Reforms. RIN: 0720-
AB70

    This final rule implements the primary features of section 701 and 
partially implements several other sections of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA-17). The rule makes 
significant changes to the TRICARE program, especially to the health 
maintenance organization (HMO)-like health plan known as TRICARE Prime; 
to the preferred provider organization (PPO) health plan previously 
known as TRICARE Extra and replaced by TRICARE Select; and to the third 
health care option known as TRICARE Standard, which was terminated 
December 31, 2017, and is also replaced by TRICARE Select.
    The statute also adopts a new health plan enrollment system under 
TRICARE and new provisions for access to care, high value services, 
preventive care, and healthy lifestyles. In implementing section 701 
and partially implementing several other sections of NDAA-17, this rule 
advances all four components of the Military Health System's quadruple 
aim of improved readiness, better care, better health, and lower cost. 
The aim of improved readiness is served by reinforcing the vital role 
of the TRICARE Prime health plan to refer patients, particularly those 
needing specialty care, to military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) 
in order to ensure that military health care providers maintain 
clinical currency and proficiency in their professional fields.
    The objective of better care is enhanced by a number of 
improvements in beneficiary access to health care services, including 
increased geographical coverage for the TRICARE Select provider 
network, reduced administrative hurdles for TRICARE Prime enrollees to 
obtain urgent care services and specialty care referrals, and promotion 
of high value services and medications. The goal of better health is 
advanced by expanding TRICARE coverage of preventive care services, 
treatment of obesity, high-value care, and telehealth. Finally, the aim 
of lower cost is furthered by refining cost-benefit assessments for 
TRICARE plan specifications that remain under DoD's discretion and 
adding flexibilities to incentivize high-value health care services.

USACE

    The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is a major Army 
command made up of some 37,000 civilian and military personnel, making 
it one of the world's largest public engineering, design, and 
construction management agencies. Although generally associated with 
flood and coastal storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and 
aquatic ecosystem restoration in the United States, USACE is involved 
in a wide range of public works throughout the world.
    The USACE's mission is to ``Deliver vital public and military 
engineering services; partnering in peace and war to strengthen our 
Nation's security, energize the economy and reduce risks from 
disasters.'' The most visible missions include:
     Water resources development activities including flood 
risk management, navigation, aquatic ecosystem restoration, recreation, 
emergency response, and environmental stewardship
     Design and construction management of military facilities 
for the Army, Air Force, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve and other 
Defense and Federal agencies.
    For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rules.

Waters of the United States. RINs: 0710-AA79, 0710-AA80

    In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
the Army (``the agencies'') published the ``Clean Water Rule: 
Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' (80 FR 37054, June 29, 
2015). On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit stayed the 2015 rule nationwide pending further action of the 
court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 
13778, ``Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by 
Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule'' which instructed the 
agencies to review the 2015 rule and rescind or replace it as 
appropriate and consistent with law. On July 27, 2017,

[[Page 57840]]

the agencies published a Federal Register notice proposing to repeal 
(STEP 1 of a comprehensive 2-STEP process) the 2015 Clean Water Rule 
(2015 Rule) and recodify the pre-existing regulations; the initial 30-
day comment period was extended an additional 30 days to September 28, 
2017. The agencies signed a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
on June 29, 2018, clarifying and seeking additional comment on the 
proposal.
    In Step 2 (Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States'), 
the agencies plan to propose a new definition that would replace the 
prior regulations and the approach in the CWR2015 Rule. In determining 
the possible new approach, the agencies are considering defining 
``navigable waters'' in a manner consistent with the plurality opinion 
of Justice Antonin Scalia in the Rapanos decision, as instructed by 
Executive Order 13778, ``Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and 
Economic Growth by Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule.''
    On February 6, 2018, the agencies issued a final rule adding an 
applicability date to the CWR2015 Rule of February 6, 2020, to provide 
continuity and certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes, 
and the public while the agencies conduct STEP 2 of the rulemaking. 
Until the new definition is finalized, the agencies will continue to 
implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the CWR 
consistent with Supreme Court decisions and practice, and as informed 
by applicable agency guidance documents.

Regulatory Program of the Army Corps of Engineers Tribal Consultation 
and National Historic Preservation Act Compliance. RIN: 0710-AA75

    The USACE recognizes the sovereign status of Indian tribes (as 
defined by Executive Order 13175) and our obligation for pre-decisional 
government-to-government consultation, as established through and 
confirmed by the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive 
orders, judicial decisions, and Presidential documents and policies, on 
proposed regulatory actions (e.g., individual permit decisions and 
general permit verifications). The USACE Regulatory Program's 
regulations for considering the effects of its actions on historic 
properties as required under Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA) are outlined at 33 CFR 325 Appendix C. Since 
these regulations were promulgated in 1990, there have been amendments 
to the NHPA and revisions to Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation's (ACHP) regulations at 36 CFR part 800 subpart B, 
addressing, among other things, tribal consultation requirements. In 
response, the USACE issued interim guidance until rulemaking could be 
completed in order to ensure full compliance with the NHPA and ACHP's 
regulations. The USACE seeks to revise its regulations to conform to 
these requirements.

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

    The USACE is updating and clarifying its policies governing the use 
of its reservoir projects for domestic, municipal and industrial water 
supply pursuant to Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the 
Water Supply Act of 1958 (WSA). The USACE intends through this 
rulemaking to explain and improve its interpretations and practices 
under these statutes. The rule is intended to enhance the USACE's 
ability to cooperate with State and local interests in the development 
of water supplies in connection with the operation of its reservoirs 
for federal purposes as authorized by Congress, to facilitate water 
supply uses of USACE reservoirs by others as contemplated under 
applicable law, and to avoid interfering with lawful uses of water by 
any entity when the USACE exercises its discretionary authority under 
either section 6 or the WSA. The rule would apply only to reservoir 
projects operated by the USACE, not to projects operated by other 
federal or non-federal entities, and it would not impose requirements 
on any other entity, alter existing contractual arrangements at USACE 
reservoirs, or require operational changes at any Corps reservoir.

Natural Disaster Procedures: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 
Activities of the Corps of Engineers. RIN: 0710-AA78

    The USACE is proposing to update its regulations for USACE's 
natural disaster procedures pursuant to Section 5 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1941, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701n), commonly referred to as 
Public Law 84-99. The revisions are necessary to incorporate elements 
of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014), 
and update procedures concerning USACE authority to address disaster 
preparedness, response, and recovery activities. The revisions relating 
to WRRDA 2014 include the authority to implement modifications to Flood 
Control Works (FCW) and Coastal Storm Risk Management Projects 
(formerly referred to as Hurricane and Shore Protection Projects); and 
the authority to implement nonstructural alternatives to 
rehabilitation, if requested by the non-federal sponsor. Other 
significant changes under consideration include revisions to the 
eligibility criteria for rehabilitation assistance for FCW, an increase 
to the minimum repair cost for FCW projects, revised policies to 
address endangered species and vegetation management during 
rehabilitation, and a change in the cost share for emergency measures 
constructed using permanent construction standards.

Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources--Review and 
Approval of Mitigation Banks and In-Lieu Fee Programs. RIN: 0710-AA83

    This rule proposes to amend the regulations governing the review 
and approval process for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, 
which are used to provide compensatory mitigation that offsets losses 
of jurisdictional waters and wetlands authorized by Department of the 
Army permits. Those regulations also include time frames for certain 
steps in the mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program review and 
approval process. The review and approval process for mitigation banks 
and in-lieu fee programs includes an opportunity for public and agency 
review and comment, as well as a second review by an interagency review 
team. The interagency review team consists of federal, tribal, state, 
and local agencies that review documentation and provide the United 
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with advice on the establishment 
and management of mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs. The USACE 
is reviewing the review and approval process and the interagency review 
team process in particular to determine whether and how it can enhance 
the efficiency of those processes. An increase in efficiency could 
result in savings to the public if it results in similar or improved 
outcomes with shorter review times and thereby reduce risk and 
uncertainty for mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program sponsors and 
the costs they incur in obtaining mitigation banking or in-lieu fee 
program instruments. An increase in review efficiency could also 
decrease the resources other federal, tribal, state, and local agencies 
expend in reviewing these activities, attending meetings, participating 
in site visits, and

[[Page 57841]]

providing their comments to the USACE.

Modification of Nationwide Permits. RIN: 0710-AA84

    The USACE issues nationwide permits to authorize specific 
categories of activities in jurisdictional waters and wetlands that 
have no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse 
environmental effects. The issuance and reissuance of nationwide 
permits must be done every five years to continue the Nationwide Permit 
Program. The nationwide permits were last issued on December 21, 2016, 
and expire on March 18, 2022. On October 25, 2017, the USACE issued a 
report to meet the requirements of Executive Order 13783, Promoting 
Energy Independence and Economic Growth. In that report, the USACE 
recommended changes to nine nationwide permits that authorize 
activities related to domestic energy production and use, including 
oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy sources, as well as 
renewable energy sources such as flowing water, wind, and solar energy. 
This rulemaking action would seek to review and, if appropriate, modify 
those nine nationwide permits in accordance with the opportunities 
identified in the report in order to reduce burdens on the public. In 
addition, the Corps is considering modifying an additional 23 
nationwide permits to allow federal agencies to select and use 
nationwide permits without additional USACE review. This rulemaking 
action would help simplify the nationwide permit authorization process.

DOD--DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS COUNCIL (DARC)

Proposed Rule Stage

22. Contractor Purchasing System Review Threshold (DFARS CASE 2017-
D038)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 244.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement to establish a higher dollar threshold for 
conducting contractor purchasing system reviews. This rule proposes, in 
lieu of the threshold at Federal Acquisition Regulation 44.302(a) of 
$25 million, the administrative contracting officer shall determine the 
need for a contractors purchasing system review if a contractor's sales 
to the Government are expected to exceed $50 million during the next 12 
months.
    Statement of Need: There is a need to increase the threshold for a 
contractor purchasing system review from $25 to $50 million to reduce 
the administrative burden on contractors and the Government for 
maintaining and reviewing an approved contractor purchasing system.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority 
at 41 U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, which provides the 
authority to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and 
executive agency implementing regulations.
    Alternatives: No alternatives to this action are being considered 
at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Implementing this rule provides a 
net annualized savings of approximately $12 million. This estimate is 
based on data available in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) 
data for fiscal year 2016, which indicates that 958 unique vendors 
received awards valued at $25 million or more, but less than $50 
million, that were subject to the purchasing system review. Removing 
this requirement would relieve these contractors from the time and cost 
burden required to establish, maintain, audit, document, and train for 
an approved purchasing system.
    Risks: If this rule is not finalized, the public will continue to 
experience additional costs to comply with this rule at the current 
threshold.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations 
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0750-AJ48

DOD--DARC

23. Brand Name or Equal (DFARS CASE 2017-D040)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 113-291, sec. 888; 10 
U.S.C. 2304(f)
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 206; 48 CFR 211.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 23, 2016, Effective upon 
enactment.
    Abstract: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement to implement section 888 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, which requires that 
competition not be limited through the use of specifying brand names or 
brand name or equivalent descriptions, or proprietary specifications 
and standards, unless a justification for such specifications is 
provided and approved in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(f).
    Statement of Need: This case is necessary to ensure contracting 
officers comply with section 888 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-
291). Specifically, it will ensure contracting officers properly 
justify for the use of brand name and brand name or equivalent 
descriptions, or proprietary specifications or standards.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority 
at 41 U.S.C. 1303, Functions and authority, which provides the 
authority to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and 
executive agency implementing regulations. In addition, this rule is 
necessary to implement the statutory amendments made by section 888 of 
the NDAA for FY 2017.
    Alternatives: There are no viable alternatives that are consistent 
with the stated objectives of the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department does not expect this 
proposed rule to have any cost impact on contractors or offerors. 
Rather, preparing a justification for the use of brand name 
descriptions or specifications provides increased transparency into the 
acquisition planning and source selection strategy process for 
department goods and services.
    Risks: If this rule is not finalized, the department will not be in 
compliance with section 888 of the NDAA for FY 2017, therefore losing 
an opportunity to increase competition, expand the defense industrial 
base and secure reduced pricing.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations 
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941,

[[Page 57842]]

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

DOD--DARC

Final Rule Stage

24. Submission of Summary Subcontract Report (DFARS CASE 2017-D005)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 252.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify the entity to 
which Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) are to be submitted and the 
entity that acknowledges receipt of, or rejects, SSRs in the Electronic 
Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). The SSR is used to collect 
prime contractors' and subcontractors' subcontract award data for a 
specific Federal Government agency when the prime or subcontractor: (a) 
Holds one or more contracts over $700,000 (over $1,500,000 for 
construction of a public facility); and (b) is required to report 
subcontracts awarded to various types of small business under an 
individual subcontracting plan with the Federal Government. Currently, 
the contractors submit the SSR to the various individual DoD components 
(i.e., departments and agencies within DoD) with which they have 
contracts. As a result of this rule, contractors with individual 
subcontracting plans will submit a single, consolidated SSR in eSRS at 
the DoD-level, which will be acknowledged or rejected in eSRS at the 
DoD-level. These revisions will bring DFARS into compliance with the 
requirement for a consolidated SSR in the clause at Federal Acquisition 
Regulation 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. This rule will 
also have a positive impact on contractors, because they will be able 
to submit a single consolidated SSR to DoD, instead of multiple SSRs to 
DoD components.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of the rule change is to amend the 
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement 
a policy that streamlines the submission and review of Summary 
Subcontract Reports (SSRs) for DoD contractors. Instead of the current 
practice of submitting multiple SSRs to various departments or agencies 
within DoD, contractors with individual subcontracting plans will 
submit one consolidated SSR at the DoD level in the Electronic 
Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). The consolidated SSR will be 
acknowledged or rejected in eSRS at the DoD level. Large business 
contractors currently submit SSRs to the department or agency within 
DoD that administers the majority of the contractor's individual 
subcontracting plans, and these contractors frequently must submit SSRs 
to each department or agency within DoD with which they have contracts. 
This results in extra work for the contractors and creates problems 
with duplicate subcontracting data. By requiring submission and review 
of SSRs at the DoD level, this rule identifies a solution for these 
issues.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is issued under the authority at 
41 U.S.C. 1303, functions and authority, which provides the authority 
to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation and executive 
agency implementing regulations.
    Alternatives: There are no known alternatives that would achieve 
the efficiencies expected from this rule. The current submission 
requirements result in extra work for contractors and create problems 
with duplicate subcontracting data being reported.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By requiring submission and review 
of SSRs at the DoD level, this rule solves these issues. The following 
is a summary of the estimated anticipated public cost savings 
calculated in 2016 dollars at a 7-percent discount rate and in 
perpetuity:
    Annualized Cost Savings: -$25,514.
    Present Value Cost Savings: -$364,492.
    Risks: There are no identified risks associated with this rule. The 
rule should serve to eliminate the potential for duplicative reporting 
of subcontracting data to DoD.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/29/18  83 FR 30666
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/28/18
Final Action........................   12/00/18
Final Action Effective..............   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations 
System, Department of Defense, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0750-AJ42

DOD--U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (COE)

Prerule Stage

25. Regulatory Program of the Army Corps of Engineers Tribal 
Consultation and National Historic Preservation Act Compliance

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344; 33 U.S.C. 401; 33 U.S.C. 403; 33 
U.S.C. 1413
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 325.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recognizes the 
sovereign status of Indian tribes (as defined by Executive Order 13175) 
and our obligation for pre-decisional government-to-government 
consultation, as established through and confirmed by the U.S. 
Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, 
and Presidential documents and policies, on proposed regulatory actions 
(e.g., individual permit decisions and general permit verifications). 
In addition, the USACE must also consider the effects of its actions on 
historic properties pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act. The USACE Regulatory Program's regulations for 
complying with the NHPA are outlined at 33 CFR 325 appendix C. Since 
these regulations were promulgated in 1990, there have been amendments 
to the NHPA and revisions to the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation's (ACHP) regulations at 36 CFR part 800 subpart B, 
addressing, among other things, tribal consultation requirements. In 
response, the USACE issued interim guidance until rulemaking could be 
completed in order to ensure full compliance with the NHPA and ACHP's 
regulations. The USACE seeks to revise its regulations to conform to 
these requirements. Consequently, the USACE intends to publish an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit the public's input and 
inform its drafting of any future rulemaking.
    Statement of Need: Since the USACE Regulatory Program's regulations 
for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) were 
promulgated in 1990, there have been amendments to the NHPA and 
revisions

[[Page 57843]]

to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (ACHP) regulations at 36 
CFR part 800 subpart B. The ACHP's regulations address, among other 
things, tribal consultation requirements. The Corps seeks to revise its 
regulations to conform to these requirements, and to develop 
regulations governing consultation with Indian tribes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: For historic properties: Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act. The USACE's obligations to consult 
with Indian tribes are derived from the U.S. Constitution, treaties, 
statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and Presidential 
documents and policies.
    Alternatives: Various alternatives are expected to be developed 
from the input received from the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 
and further explored during the development of the proposed and final 
rules.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Anticipated costs and benefits will 
be estimated as rule options are developed after comments received in 
response to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking are evaluated.
    Risks: The regulation is expected to reduce risks to the 
environment, specifically historic properties, properties of 
traditional religious and cultural importance to tribes, and natural 
resources that are subject to tribal treaty rights. Other potential 
risks will likely be identified through the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking and those risks will be evaluated during the rulemaking 
process.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/00/19  .......................
ANPRM Comment Period End............   05/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Amy Klein, Regulatory Program Manager, Department 
of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, Washington, 
DC 20314, Phone: 202 761-4559, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0710-AA75

DOD--COE

Proposed Rule Stage

26. Natural Disaster Procedures: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 
Activities of the Corps of Engineers

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 701n
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 203.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Corps is proposing to update the Federal regulation 
for its natural disaster procedures currently promulgated in 33 CFR 
part 203. This proposed rule continues the rulemaking process to revise 
33 CFR part 203, which implements section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
1941, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 701n), commonly referred to as Public Law 
84-99. The Corps initiated this process through advanced notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on February 13, 2015. The revisions under 
consideration would respond to the comments to the ANPR. The revisions 
address statutory changes to the program enacted in section 3011 and 
3029 of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 
2014) regarding the System Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF), 
modifications to Flood Control Works (FCW) and Coastal Storm Risk 
Management Projects (formerly referred to as Hurricane and Shore 
Protection Projects); and nonstructural alternatives to rehabilitation, 
if requested by the non-Federal sponsor. Additional revisions address 
statutory changes from section 1176 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2016 (WRDA) which provided an express definition of 
nonstructural alternatives,'' as that term is used in Public Law 84-99, 
and authorized the Chief of Engineers, under certain circumstances, to 
increase the level of protection of flood control or hurricane or shore 
protection works when conducting repair or restoration activities to 
such works under Public Law 84-99. Other significant changes under 
consideration include revisions to the eligibility criteria for 
rehabilitation assistance for flood control works (FCW), an increase to 
the minimum repair cost for FCW projects, revised policies to address 
endangered species and vegetation management during rehabilitation, and 
a change in the cost share for emergency measures constructed using 
permanent construction standards.
    Statement of Need: Since the last revision in 2003, significant 
disasters, including Hurricane Katrina (2005), Hurricane Sandy (2012), 
flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (2008, 2011, and 2013), 
and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria (2017) have provided a more 
detailed understanding of the nature and severity of risk associated 
with flood control projects. Additionally, the maturation of risk-
informed decision making approaches and technological advancements have 
influenced the outlook on how Public Law 84-99 activities should be 
implemented, with a shift towards better alignment with Corps Levee 
Safety and National Flood Risk Management Programs, as well as the 
National Preparedness and Response Frameworks. Through these programs, 
the Corps works with non-federal sponsors and stakeholders to assess, 
communicate, and manage the risks to people, property, and the 
environment associated with levee systems and flood risks. Revisions to 
part 203 are necessary to implement statutes that amended or otherwise 
affected Public Law 84-99, as explained in the next section.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 84-99 authorizes an emergency 
fund to be expended at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers for 
preparation for natural disasters, flood fighting, rescue operations, 
repairing or restoring flood control works, emergency protection of 
federally authorized hurricane or shore protection projects, and the 
repair and restoration of federally authorized hurricane and shore 
protection projects damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water of 
other than ordinary nature.
    1. Subsection 3029(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
Act of 2014 (WRRDA) (Pub. L. 113-121) granted the Chief of Engineers 
authority, under certain circumstances, to make modifications to flood 
control and hurricane or shore protections works damaged during flood 
or coastal storms events, as well as the authority to implement 
nonstructural alternatives in the repair and restoration of hurricane 
or shore protection works.
    2. Subsection 3029(b) of WRRDA 2014 directed the Secretary of the 
Army to undertake a review of implementation of Public Law 84-99 to 
ensure the safety of affected communities to future flooding and storm 
events; the resiliency of water resources development projects to 
future flooding and storm events; the long-term cost-effectiveness of 
water resources development projects that provide flood control and 
hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits; and the policy goals and 
objectives that were outlined by the President as a response to recent

[[Page 57844]]

extreme weather events at that time are met.
    3. Section 3011 of WRRDA 2014 mandated that a levee system shall 
remain eligible for rehabilitation assistance under Public Law 84-99 as 
long as the system sponsor continues to make satisfactory progress, as 
determined by the Secretary of the Army, on an approved system wide 
improvement framework or letter of intent.
    4. Section 1176 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 
(WRDA) (Pub. L. 114-322, title I) provided an express definition of 
nonstructural alternatives, as that term is used in Public Law 84-99, 
and authorized the Chief of Engineers, under certain circumstances, to 
increase the level of protection of flood control or hurricane or shore 
protection works when conducting repair or restoration activities to 
such works under Public Law 84-99.
    Alternatives:
    1. No rule update: Implement all changes through agency discretion. 
Alternative not selected because the Public Law 84-99 amendments are 
very prescriptive and it is inappropriate for those conflicts to exist.
    2. Modify: Evaluate required changes and determine which require 
implementation via agency discretion and those requiring an update to 
the rule, thereby only updating the rule where necessary. Alternative 
not selected because of inconsistencies resulting from a lack of 
comprehensive consideration and a mix of policies. It would result in 
misunderstandings of program activities and inhibit transparency.
    3. Repeal and replace (Selected Alternative): Incorporate and 
integrate the current state of the practice of flood risk management 
principles and concepts through the provision of agency policy codified 
in a federal rule. The intended benefit is to encourage broader 
community flood risk management activities, as enacted by non-federal 
project sponsors. The rule alternative also consolidates recent Public 
Law 84-99 amendments into one comprehensive rule, ensuring the Public 
has a clear understanding of the responsibilities and requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Overall, the changes to this 
regulation provide greater flexibility to the federal government and 
non-Federal sponsors and improve the effectiveness of federal and local 
investments in riverine and coastal projects. These proposed changes 
take advantage of our increased understanding of project risks, moving 
from an assessment of how the project is expected to perform to a focus 
on a broader set of actions to reduce risk to life, including 
operations, maintenance, planning, and execution actions to improve 
emergency warning and evacuation and other activities to improve the 
ability of communities and individuals to understand and manage 
project-related risks. Informed by more detailed understanding of risk 
for levee projects, the federal government and non-federal sponsors are 
able to apply limited resources to the risk management activities that 
most effectively reduce riverine flood risk and avoid expenditures that 
have little risk reduction benefit.
    Risks: The rule will is expected to reduce risks to public health 
and safety by improving the Corps' ability to prepare for national 
response framework missions that contribute to the restoration of 
critical lifelines that are necessary for life sustaining activities 
and economic recovery. The rule is also expected to encourage broader 
community flood risk management activities, as enacted by non-federal 
project sponsors.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/13/15  80 FR 8014
ANPRM Comment Period End............   04/14/15  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/18  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Willem Helms, Department of Defense, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314, Phone: 202 
761-5909.
    RIN: 0710-AA78

DOD--COE

27. Definition of ``Waters of the United States''

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 328.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Department of the Army (the agencies) published the ``Clean Water Rule: 
Definition of Waters of the United States'' (80 FR 37054, June 29, 
2015). On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit stayed the 2015 rule nationwide pending further action of the 
court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 
13778, ``Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by 
Reviewing the `Waters of the United States Rule','' which instructed 
the agencies to review the 2015 Rule and rescind or replace it as 
appropriate and consistent with law. The agencies are publishing this 
proposed rule to follow the first step, which sought to recodify the 
definition of ``waters of the United States'' that existed prior to the 
2015 Rule. In this second step, the agencies are conducting a 
substantive reevaluation and revision of the definition of ``waters of 
the United States'' in accordance with the Executive order.
    Statement of Need: Please see EPA's statement of need for RIN 2040-
AF75, because EPA is the lead for this rulemaking action.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.).
    Alternatives: Please see EPA's alternatives for RIN 2040-AF75, 
because EPA is the lead for this rulemaking action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Please see EPA's statement of 
anticipated costs and benefits for RIN 2040-AF75, because EPA is the 
lead for this rulemaking action.
    Risks: Please see EPA's statement of risks for RIN 2040-AF75, 
because EPA is the lead for this rulemaking action.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Stacey Jensen, Department of Defense, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314, Phone: 202 
761-5856.
    Related RIN: Related to 2040-AF75
    RIN: 0710-AA80

DOD--COE

28. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources--Review and 
Approval of Mitigation Banks and In-Lieu Fee Programs

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.

[[Page 57845]]

    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344; 33 U.S.C. 403; 33 U.S.C. 1413
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 332.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued 
a final rule governing compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic 
resources (73 FR 19593). The regulation prescribes a review and 
approval process for the establishment and management of mitigation 
banks and in-lieu fee programs. The regulation also includes time 
frames for certain steps in the mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program 
review and approval process. The review and approval process for 
mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs includes an opportunity for 
public and agency review and comment, as well as a second review by an 
interagency review team. The interagency review team consists of 
Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies that review documentation 
and provide the USACE with advice on the establishment and management 
of mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs. The Corps is reviewing 
the review and approval process and the interagency review team process 
in particular to enhance the efficiency of the mitigation bank and in-
lieu fee program approval time frames. An increase in efficiency would 
likely result in savings to the public because it is expected to result 
in shorter review times for proposed mitigation banks, in-lieu fee 
programs, and instrument modifications, as well as credit release 
requests, and decreases in the resources other federal, state, and 
local agencies expend in reviewing these activities, attending 
meetings, participating in site visits, and providing their comments to 
the Corps.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would propose executing 
execute of one of the legislative principles in the Administration's 
framework for rebuilding infrastructure in the United States, by 
removing duplication in the review process for mitigation banks and in-
lieu fee programs that offset losses of jurisdictional waters and 
wetlands authorized by Department of the Army permits issued under 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and 
Harbors Act of 1899. It could reduce duplication, increase efficiency, 
and lower costs by providing one review process for proposed mitigation 
banks and in-lieu fee programs, instead of two processes. Depending on 
the outcome of this rulemaking, Federal, tribal, state, and local 
agencies could end up using a different approach to provide input into 
the mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program review process by 
participating in the public notice and comment process along with the 
general public.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Corps' legal authority for conducting 
this rulemaking is section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) 
and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
    Alternatives: Alternatives that may be considered during the 
rulemaking process might include, but are not limited to, conducting 
the rulemaking to remove the interagency review team process from the 
regulation, using other approaches to increase efficiency in the 
mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program review and approval process, or 
making no changes to the regulation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule change is 
anticipated to reduce costs for sponsors of mitigation banks and in-
lieu fee programs, by reducing the amount of time it takes to review 
and approve their mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, and 
oversee their operation. The proposed rule change is also anticipated 
to reduce costs to the Corps and other Federal, Tribal, State, and 
local government agencies by eliminating costs associated with the 
current interagency review team processes, including staff time for 
review of documentation for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, 
site visits, travel, and participation in meetings. A regulatory impact 
analysis will be prepared for the proposed rule, to fully evaluate 
anticipated costs and benefits.
    Risks: The proposed rule is not anticipated to increase risks to 
public health, safety, or the environment because the Corps would 
retain its authority to review and approve mitigation banks and in-lieu 
fee programs, as well as modification of mitigation banking instruments 
and in-lieu fee program instruments. It might only alter how Federal, 
Tribal, State, and local government agencies provide their views on 
proposed mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, and modifications 
to approved mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs. Mitigation banks 
and in-lieu fee programs would continue to be required to provide 
ecologically successful aquatic resource compensatory mitigation 
projects to offset permitted impacts to jurisdictional waters and 
wetlands.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/19
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: David B. Olson, Regulatory Program Manager, 
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, 
CECW-CO, Washington, DC 20314-1000, Phone: 202 761-4922, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0710-AA83

DOD--COE

29. Modification of Nationwide Permits

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344(e); 33 U.S.C. 403
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues 
nationwide permits to authorize specific categories of activities in 
jurisdictional waters and wetlands that have no more than minimal 
individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. This action 
would be a deregulatory action because it proposes to remove specific 
terms of nationwide permits that impose costs on prospective 
permittees, and it would help simplify the nationwide permit 
authorization process. Since the submission and review of such 
nationwide permits can take significantly less time than individual 
permits, any changes to the program that increase the conditions under 
which the nationwide permits can be used could result in significant 
cost savings for the public. The issuance and reissuance of nationwide 
permits must be done every five years to continue the Nationwide Permit 
Program. The nationwide permits were last issued on December 21, 2016, 
and expire on March 18, 2022. On October 25, 2017, the Corps issued a 
report to meet the requirements of Executive Order 13783, Promoting 
Energy Independence and Economic Growth. In that report, the Corps 
recommended changes to nine nationwide permits that authorize 
activities related to domestic energy production and use, including 
oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy sources, as well as 
renewable energy sources such as flowing water, wind, and solar energy. 
This rulemaking action would seek to review and, if appropriate, modify 
those nine nationwide permits in accordance with the opportunities 
identified in the

[[Page 57846]]

report in order to reduce burden on the public. In addition, the Corps 
is considering modifying an additional 23 nationwide permits to allow 
federal agencies to select and use nationwide permits without 
additional Corps review. This rulemaking action would help simplify the 
nationwide permit authorization process.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would propose executing the 
recommendations the Corps made in the report dated October 25, 2017, 
that it wrote in response to Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy 
Independence and Economic Growth, as well as one of the legislative 
principles in the Administration's framework for rebuilding 
infrastructure in the United States. For Executive Order 13783, the 
Corps may propose to modify 9 nationwide permits that authorize 
activities association with energy production and distribution. For the 
framework for rebuilding infrastructure in the United States, the Corps 
may propose to modify an additional 23 nationwide permits so that 
federal agencies that want to use these nationwide permits do not have 
to submit pre-construction notifications.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Corps has authority to issue nationwide 
permits under the following statutes: Section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
    Alternatives: Potential alternatives consist of: (1) Conducting the 
rulemaking necessary to make the proposed modifications or other 
modifications to these 32 nationwide permits prior to the expiration of 
the current nationwide permits, (2) conducting rulemaking to modify a 
smaller number of the current nationwide permits prior to the 
expiration of the current nationwide permits, and (3) taking no action 
until the next scheduled rulemaking. The current nationwide permits 
went into effect on March 19, 2017, and expire on March 18, 2022. If 
the nationwide permits are not reissued before March 18, 2022, the 
nationwide permits will automatically expire and project proponents 
would be required to obtain individual permits to conduct regulated 
activities under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, unless the applicable Corps 
district has regional general permits available to authorize similar 
categories of activities.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes to these 32 
nationwide permits would reduce compliance costs for regulated entities 
by removing or changing certain terms of those nationwide permits to 
make them easier to use. According to the regulatory impact analysis 
prepared for the 2017 nationwide permits, a typical nationwide permit 
verification costs $4,308 to $14,358 to obtain, whereas a typical 
individual permit costs $17,230 to $34,460 to obtain. A more detailed 
cost/benefit analysis will be prepared when the proposed rule is 
developed.
    Risks: The nationwide permits reduce risks to public health, 
safety, and the environment by providing streamlined authorization for 
categories of activities that require Department of the Army 
authorization and result in no more than minimal individual and 
cumulative adverse environmental effects. The nationwide permits 
authorize the construction and maintenance of infrastructure that 
supports public health and safety. The streamlined authorization 
process provided by the nationwide permits reduces risks to the 
environment by giving incentives to project proponents to design their 
projects to reduce adverse environmental effects so that they are no 
more than minimal. Many of the nationwide permits have acreage and 
other terms that help regulated entities design their projects to 
qualify for nationwide permit authorization.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/19  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: David B. Olson, Regulatory Program Manager, 
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, 
CECW-CO, Washington, DC 20314-1000, Phone: 202 761-4922, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0710-AA84

DOD--COE

Final Rule Stage

30. 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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 708; 43 U.S.C. 390b
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 209.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps) is updating and clarifying the policies governing the use of 
its reservoir projects for domestic, municipal, and industrial water 
supply pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 section 6, 33 U.S.C. 
708 (section 6), and the Water Supply Act of 1958, 43 U.S.C. 390(b) 
(WSA). The proposed rules for the use of storage space in Corps 
reservoir projects for water supply are being developed to implement 
section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Water Supply Act of 
1958.
    Statement of Need: The Corps is updating and clarifying its 
policies governing the use of its reservoir projects for domestic, 
municipal and industrial water supply pursuant to Section 6 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Water Supply Act of 1958. The Corps 
intends through this rulemaking to explain and improve its 
interpretations and practices under these statutes. The rule is 
intended to enhance the Corps' ability to cooperate with state and 
local interests in the development of water supplies in connection with 
the operation of its reservoirs for federal purposes as authorized by 
Congress, to facilitate water supply uses of Corps reservoirs by others 
as contemplated under applicable law, and to avoid interfering with 
lawful uses of water by any entity when the Corps exercises its 
discretionary authority under either Section 6 or the Water Supply Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 
authorizes the Secretary of the Army to make contracts with states, 
municipalities, private concerns, or individuals, at such prices and on 
such terms as [the Secretary] may deem reasonable, for domestic and 
industrial uses for surplus water that may be available at any 
reservoir under the control of the [Department of the Army]. 33 U.S.C. 
708. The Water Supply Act provides that storage may be included in any 
reservoir project surveyed, planned, constructed or to be planned, 
surveyed and/or constructed by the Corps to impound water for present 
or anticipated future demand or need for municipal or industrial water, 
43 U.S.C. 390b(b).
    Alternatives: The Army anticipates considering two alternatives: 
(1) A no action alternative and (2) revising the Corps' policies 
implementing section 6 and the Water Supply Act.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact. It would

[[Page 57847]]

not change the methodology by which the cost of Water Supply Act 
storage agreements is determined. It would establish a new pricing 
methodology for surplus water contracts, under which users would be 
charged only for costs, if any, incurred by the Corps in making surplus 
water available. The costs incurred by the Government and the costs 
charged to users for surplus water withdrawals are not expected to be 
significant.
    Risks: This rule is expected to reduce risks to public health and 
the environment by facilitating water supply uses of Corps reservoirs 
by others as contemplated under applicable law, and to avoid 
interfering with lawful uses of water by any entity. This rule is also 
expected to reduce risk by clarifying existing policies of non-
interference with water rights issued by the states or other permitting 
authorities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/16/16  81 FR 91556
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/16/17  .......................
Final Action........................   08/00/19  .......................
Final Action Effective..............   10/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Joseph Redican, Deputy Chief, Planning and Policy 
Division, Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G 
Street NW, Washington, DC 20314, Phone: 202 761-4523, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0710-AA72

DOD--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS (DODOASHA)

Final Rule Stage

31. Establishment of Tricare Select and Other Tricare Reforms

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch. 55; NDAA-17 sec. 701; NDAA-17 sec. 
706; NDAA-17 sec. 715; NDAA-17 sec. 718; NDAA-17 sec. 729
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 23, 2017, NDAA 17 section 
718. Other, Statutory, January 1, 2018, NDAA 17 section 729.
    Abstract: This final rule implements the primary features of 
section 701 and partially implements several other sections of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA-17). The 
law makes significant changes to the TRICARE program, especially to the 
health maintenance organization (HMO) like health plan, known as 
TRICARE Prime; to the preferred provider organization health plan, 
previously called TRICARE Extra and now to be called TRICARE Select; 
and to the third health care option, known as TRICARE Standard, which 
was terminated as of December 31, 2017, and replaced by TRICARE Select. 
The statute also adopts a new health plan enrollment system under 
TRICARE and new provisions for access to care, high value services, 
preventive care, and healthy lifestyles. In implementing the statutory 
changes, this finalizes a number of improvements to TRICARE. 
Specifically, this rule will enhance beneficiary access to health care 
services, including increased geographic coverage for the TRICARE 
Select provider network, reduced administrative hurdles for TRICARE 
Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care services and specialty care 
referrals, and promotes high value services and medications and 
telehealth services. It also expanded TRICARE coverage of preventive 
care services and prevention and treatment of obesity and refining 
cost-benefit assessments for TRICARE plan specifications that remain 
under DoD's discretion.
    Statement of Need: This rule implements the primary features of 
section 701 and partially implements several other sections of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA-17). The 
law makes significant changes to the TRICARE program, especially to the 
health maintenance organization (HMO)-like health plan, known as 
TRICARE Prime; to the preferred provider organization health plan, 
previously called TRICARE Extra and now to be called TRICARE Select; 
and to the third health care option, known as TRICARE Standard, which 
will be terminated as of December 31, 2017, and replaced by TRICARE 
Select. The statute also adopts a new health plan enrollment system 
under TRICARE and new provisions for access to care, high-value 
services, preventive care, and healthy lifestyles. In implementing the 
statutory changes, this rule makes a number of improvements to TRICARE.
    In implementing section 701 and partially implementing several 
other sections of NDAA-17, this interim final rule advances all four 
components of the Military Health System's quadruple aim of stronger 
readiness, better care, healthier people, and smarter spending. The aim 
of stronger readiness is served by reinforcing the vital role of the 
TRICARE Prime health plan to refer patients, particularly those needing 
specialty care, to military medical treatment facilities in order to 
ensure that military health care providers maintain clinical currency 
and proficiency in their professional fields. The objective of better 
care is enhanced by a number of improvements in beneficiary access to 
health care services, including geographical coverage for the TRICARE 
Select provider network, reduced administrative hurdles for TRICARE 
Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care services and specialty care 
referrals, and promotion of high-value services and medications and 
telehealth services. The goal of healthier people is advanced by 
expanding TRICARE coverage of preventive care services and prevention 
and treatment of obesity. And the aim of smarter spending is furthered 
by sharpening cost-benefit assessments for TRICARE plan specifications 
that remain under the DoD's discretion.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is required to implement or 
partially implement several sections of NDAA-17, including 701, 706, 
715, 718, and 729. The legal authority for this rule also includes 
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is not anticipated to have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100M or more, thus it is not an 
economically significant rule under the Executive Order and the 
Congressional Review Act. The rule includes estimated program costs 
associated with implementation that include administrative startup 
costs ($11M) information systems changes ($10M). Executive Order 13771, 
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, seeks to control 
costs associated with the government imposition of private expenditures 
required to comply with Federal regulations and to reduce regulations 
that impose such costs. Consistent with the analysis of transfer 
payments under OMB Circular A-4, this rule does not involve regulatory 
costs subject to Executive Order 13771.
    Risks: The rule does not impose any risks. The risks lie in not 
implementing statutorily required changes.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   09/29/17  82 FR 45438
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      11/28/17  .......................
 End.

[[Page 57848]]

 
Final Action........................   01/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Mark Ellis, Department of Defense, Office of 
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810A, 
Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 681-0039.
    RIN: 0720-AB70

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States, 
local communities, institutions of higher education, and families in 
improving education and other services nationwide in order to ensure 
that all Americans, including those with disabilities, receive a high-
quality education and are prepared for high-quality employment. We 
provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education and 
related services at all levels to a wide range of stakeholders and 
individuals, including State educational and other agencies, local 
school districts, providers of early learning programs, elementary and 
secondary schools, institutions of higher education, career and 
technical schools, nonprofit organizations, postsecondary students, 
members of the public, families, and many others. These efforts are 
helping to ensure that all children and students from pre-kindergarten 
through grade 12 will be ready for, and succeed in, postsecondary 
education or employment, and that students attending postsecondary 
institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
    We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of 
Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that 
receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs, 
research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the 
dissemination of data, research, and evaluation findings to improve the 
quality of education.
    Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs that the Department 
administers will affect nearly every American during his or her life. 
Indeed, in the 2018-19 school year, about 57 million students will 
attend an estimated 133,000 elementary and secondary schools in 
approximately 13,600 districts, and about 20 million students will 
enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools. All of these students 
may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or support from 
the Department.
    In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical 
assistance, evaluations, data gathering and reporting, and monitoring 
related to our programs, we are committed to working closely with 
affected persons and groups. We know that improving education starts 
with allowing greater decision-making authority at the State and local 
levels while also recognizing that the ultimate form of local control 
occurs when parents and students are empowered to choose their own 
educational paths forward. Our core mission includes this empowerment 
of local education, serving the most vulnerable, and facilitating equal 
access for all, to ensure all students receive a high-quality 
education, and complete it with a well-considered and attainable path 
to a sustainable career.
    Toward these ends, we work with a broad range of interested parties 
and the general public, including families, students, and educators; 
State, local, and Tribal governments; other Federal agencies; and 
neighborhood groups, community-based early learning programs, 
elementary and secondary schools, colleges, rehabilitation service 
providers, adult education providers, professional associations, 
advocacy organizations, businesses, and labor organizations.
    If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we 
seek public participation at the key stages in the rulemaking process. 
We invite the public to submit comments on all proposed regulations 
through the internet or by regular mail. We also continue to seek 
greater public participation in our rulemaking activities through the 
use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new 
technologies.
    To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the 
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), an electronic single 
Government-wide access point (www.regulations.gov) that enables the 
public to submit comments on different types of Federal regulatory 
documents and read and respond to comments submitted by other members 
of the public during the public comment period. This system provides 
the public with the opportunity to submit comments electronically on 
any notice of proposed rulemaking or interim final regulations open for 
comment, as well as read and print any supporting regulatory documents.
    We are committed to reducing burden with regard to regulations, 
guidance, and information collections, reducing the burden on 
information providers involved in our programs, and making information 
easily accessible to the public. To that end and consistent with 
Executive Order 13777 (``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda''), we 
are in the process of reviewing all of our regulations and guidance to 
modify and rescind items that: (1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job 
creation; (2) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (3) impose 
costs that exceed benefits; (4) create a serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; 
(5) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 
3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in 
particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, 
information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are 
insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or 
(6) derive from or implement Executive orders or other Presidential 
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially 
modified.

II. Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Proposed Rulemakings

    The following are the key regulatory and deregulatory rulemaking 
actions the Department is planning for the coming year. We provide 
below information about the potential costs and benefits for several of 
these rulemaking actions, including whether they would be considered 
regulatory or deregulatory actions under Executive Order 13771. For 
rulemakings that we are just beginning now, we have limited information 
about their potential costs and benefits and cannot estimate at this 
time whether they would be considered regulatory or deregulatory 
actions.

Postsecondary Education/Federal Student Aid

    The Department will continue its work to complete two rulemakings 
in the area of higher education and Federal Student Aid under the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The Department has 
completed negotiated rulemaking for these two rulemakings, described 
below, and we are revisiting these regulations with the goals of 
alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensuring appropriate 
protections for students, institutions,

[[Page 57849]]

taxpayers, and the Federal government. Through the use of the 
negotiated rulemaking process, we have received input from a diverse 
range of interests and affected parties.
    The Department recently published new proposed regulations that 
would govern the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) 
Program regarding the standard and the process for determining whether 
a borrower has a defense to repayment on a loan based on an act or 
omission of a school. We also have proposed to amend other sections of 
the Direct Loan Program regulations, including those that codify our 
current policy regarding the impact that discharges have on the 150 
percent Direct Subsidized Loan Limit and the Student Assistance General 
Provisions regulations providing the financial responsibility standards 
and disclosure requirements for schools. In addition, we proposed to 
amend the discharge provisions in the Federal Perkins Loan, Direct 
Loan, and Federal Family Education Loan programs. These proposed 
regulations would replace those promulgated by the Department in 2016.
    The Department recently proposed regulations that would rescind the 
Gainful Employment (GE) regulations and remove them from subparts Q and 
R of the Student Assistance and General Provisions in 34 CFR part 668. 
Under the proposed rescission, the Department would remove the 
provisions providing for a debt-to-earnings (D/E) rates measure to 
determine a gainful employment program's continuing eligibility for 
participation in the programs authorized by title IV of the HEA as well 
as certain disclosure and reporting requirements.
    Additionally, the Secretary plans to initiate a new rulemaking to 
revise regulations related to the Secretary's recognition of 
accrediting agencies, including specific topics such as: The 
requirements of accrediting agencies in their oversight of member 
institutions; requirements for accrediting agencies to honor 
institutional mission; criteria used by the Secretary to recognize 
accrediting agencies, emphasizing criteria that focus on educational 
quality; developing a single definition for purposes of measuring and 
reporting job placement rates; and simplifying the process for 
recognition and review of accrediting agencies. The rulemaking will 
also cover issues such as: State authorization, to address the 
requirements related to programs offered through distance education or 
correspondence courses, including disclosures about such programs to 
enrolled and prospective students, and other State authorization 
issues; the definitions of a number of terms in the regulations 
governing institutional and programmatic eligibility; requirements of 
the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant 
(TEACH Grant) program, in an effort to minimize inadvertent grant-to-
loan conversions and improve outcomes for TEACH Grant recipients; 
direct assessment programs and competency-based education; and 
regulations regarding the eligibility of faith-based entities to 
participate in the Title IV, HEA programs.

Civil Rights/Title IX

    The Secretary is planning a new rulemaking to address issues under 
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended. In this 
action, we seek to clarify schools' obligations in redressing sex 
discrimination, including complaints of sexual misconduct, and the 
procedures by which they must do so.

Special Education

    The Department will continue its work to complete its rulemaking in 
the area of significant disproportionality under section 618(d) of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In July 2018, the 
Department published a final rule extending the compliance date for 
States until July 1, 2020. We are revisiting the significant 
disproportionality regulations with the goal of better serving children 
with disabilities.

Deregulatory Actions

    The Department anticipates issuing a number of deregulatory actions 
in the upcoming fiscal year. We have thus far been focusing our 
deregulatory efforts on eliminating outdated regulations. In many 
instances, our deregulatory actions are being taken because legislation 
has superseded our regulations. For example, we are planning to rescind 
a number of sections from our Office of Career, Technical, and Adult 
Education regulations to remove outdated, superseded regulations for 
programs no longer administered by the Department. This deregulatory 
action will clarify for our stakeholders and the general public which 
of our regulations are still in effect. The unified agenda identifies 
other deregulatory actions that will provide cost savings and clarity.
    Additionally, during the course of its Executive Order 13777 
review, the Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force has identified a 
number of information collections (ICRs) as being outdated, 
unnecessary, or ineffective. We are currently working to discontinue 
these.

III. Regulatory Review

    As stated previously, the Department is continuing its 
comprehensive regulatory reform efforts pursuant to Executive Order 
13777, focusing on rescinding and modifying all outdated, unnecessary, 
or ineffective regulations, guidance, and information collections. 
Section 3(e) of the Executive order requires the Department, as part of 
this effort, to ``seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, 
from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including 
State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-
governmental organizations, and trade associations'' on regulations 
that meet some or all of the criteria above. The Department will 
continue to consider public input and feedback as part of these 
efforts.

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.

[[Page 57850]]

     Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating.
     To the extent possible, establish performance objectives 
rather than specify the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated 
entity must adopt.
     Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible and as 
needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.

ED--OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR)

Proposed Rule Stage

32. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or 
Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 106.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Secretary plans to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to clarify the obligations of recipients of Federal 
financial assistance in redressing sex discrimination, including 
complaints of sexual misconduct, and the procedures by which they must 
do so.
    Statement of Need: Based on its extensive review of the critical 
issues addressed in this rulemaking, the Department has determined that 
current regulations and subregulatory guidance do not provide a 
sufficiently clear definition of what conduct constitutes sexual 
harassment or sufficiently clear standards for how recipients must 
respond to incidents of sexual harassment. To address this concern, we 
propose this regulatory action to address sexual harassment under Title 
IX for the central purpose of ensuring that Federal financial 
recipients understand their legal obligations under title IX.
    Summary of Legal Basis: We are issuing a notice of proposed 
rulemaking, and subsequently final regulations, to implement Title IX.
    Alternatives: This will be discussed in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) and final regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This will be discussed in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and final regulations.
    Risks: This will be discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) and final regulations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact:  Alejandro Reyes, Department of Education, Office 
for Civil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4E213, Washington, DC 
20202, Phone: 202 453-7100, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1870-AA14

ED--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION (OPE)

Proposed Rule Stage

33. State Authorization and Related Issues

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3474; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1011 
et seq.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department is proposing to amend, through negotiated 
rulemaking, the regulations governing the legal authorization of 
institutions by States. The Department is also proposing to amend 
regulations for the State authorization of distance education providers 
and correspondence education providers as a component of institutional 
eligibility for participation in Federal student financial aid under 
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
    Statement of Need: As required by Executive Order 13771 and 13777, 
the Department must identify regulations that are among other things 
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective and create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiative 
and policies.
    Update and revision to the regulations on State Authorization is 
necessary so that the Department does not inhibit innovation and 
competition in postsecondary education. Institutions need the 
regulatory flexibility to innovate and the Department is committed to 
ensuring program integrity with appropriate guardrails to protect 
students and taxpayer dollars. The focus of this rulemaking is on 
breaking down barriers to innovation and reducing regulatory burden 
while protecting students and taxpayers from unreasonable risk.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to 
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of 
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
    Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed 
topic and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and 
clarify current regulations for postsecondary institutions and 
accreditors.
    Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking 
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for 
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda. 
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public 
hearings inviting comment on our Federal Register notice outlining our 
intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments received, 
the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for negotiation 
and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about 
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
    Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated 
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus. 
To account for this, the Department will provide draft language prior 
to the first session of three sessions (each session is three days 
long) of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has 
been used as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking 
committee and the Department provides more specific proposals to the 
rulemaking committee between the first and second session.
    Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the 
main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to 
discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language 
to the main committee.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence        07/31/18  83 FR 36814
 Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.

[[Page 57851]]

    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Lynn Mahaffie, Department of Education, Office of 
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202, 
Phone: 202 453-6914.
    RIN: 1840-AD36

ED--OPE

34. Accreditation and Related Issues

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3474; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1011 
et seq.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department is proposing to amend, through negotiated 
rulemaking, the regulations relating to the Secretary's recognition of 
accrediting agencies and accreditation procedures as a component of 
institutional eligibility for participation in Federal student 
financial aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
amended.
    Statement of Need: As required by Executive Order 13771 and 13777, 
the Department must identify regulations that are among other things 
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective and create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiative 
and policies.
    We believe that a revision to the accreditation regulations is 
necessary to restore the separation of duties in responsibilities in 
the triad: The State Authorization, Accreditation, and the U.S. 
Department of Education. We believe that the accreditation regulations 
may contain redundancy, unnecessary duplication of oversight, and pose 
broad Federal overreach in measuring program quality. We also want to 
ensure that accreditors while measuring institutional quality do not 
infringe on autonomy of institutions in their missions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to 
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of 
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
    Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed 
topic and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and 
clarify current regulations for postsecondary institutions and 
accreditors.
    Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking 
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for 
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda. 
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public 
hearings inviting comment on our Federal Register notice outlining our 
intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments received, 
the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for negotiation 
and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about 
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
    Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated 
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus. 
To account for this, the Department will provide draft language prior 
to the first session of three sessions (each session is three days 
long) of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has 
been used as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking 
committee and the Department provides more specific proposals to the 
rulemaking committee between the first and second session.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence        07/31/18  83 FR 36814
 Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Lynn Mahaffie, Department of Education, Office of 
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202, 
Phone: 202 453-6914.
    RIN: 1840-AD37

ED--OPE

35. Ensuring Student Access to High Quality and Innovative 
Postsecondary Educational Programs

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3474; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1011 
et seq.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department proposes to create and amend, through 
negotiated rulemaking, regulations relating to institutional 
eligibility and operations for participation in Federal student 
financial aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
amended, including those relating to credit hour, competency-based 
education, direct assessment programs, and regular and substantive 
interaction between faculty and students in the delivery of distance 
education programs, in order to promote greater access for students to 
high-quality, innovative programs of postsecondary education.
    Statement of Need: As required by Executive Order 13771 and 13777, 
the Department must identify regulations that are among other things 
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective and create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiative 
and policies.
    Update and revision to the outlined regulations is necessary so 
that the Department does not inhibit innovation and competition in 
postsecondary education. For example, regulations implemented regarding 
the credit-hour, regular and substantive interaction and institutional 
partnerships in instructional programs may limit innovation and inhibit 
student completion and graduation in the rapidly evolving postsecondary 
education landscape. Institutions need the regulatory flexibility to 
innovate and the Department is committed to ensuring program integrity 
with appropriate guardrails to protect students and taxpayer dollars. 
The focus of this rulemaking is on breaking down barriers to innovation 
and reducing regulatory burden while protecting students and taxpayers 
from unreasonable risk.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to 
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of 
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
    Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed 
topics and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and 
clarify current regulations for postsecondary institutions and 
accreditors. Another alternative is to only negotiate on one or a 
smaller number of the topics the Department has proposed.
    Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking 
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for 
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda. 
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public 
hearings inviting comment on our FR Notice outlining

[[Page 57852]]

our intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments 
received, the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for 
negotiation and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide 
alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about 
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
    Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated 
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus. 
To account for this, the Department will provide draft language prior 
to the first session of three sessions (each session is three days 
long) of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has 
been used as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking 
committee and the Department provides more specific proposals to the 
rulemaking committee between the first and second session.
    Also, by negotiating a wide range of topics the Department risks 
not having the expertise necessary on the rulemaking committee to fully 
explore the nuances of each of the proposed topics. To account for this 
the Department will form two subcommittees, one directly related to 
direct assessment programs and competency-based education. These 
committees will report back to the main rulemaking committee with their 
reports.
    Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the 
main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to 
discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language 
to the main committee.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence        07/31/18  83 FR 36814
 Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Lynn Mahaffie, Department of Education, Office of 
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202, 
Phone: 202 453-6914.
    RIN: 1840-AD38

ED--OPE

36. Eligibility of Faith-Based Entities and Activities--Title IV 
Programs

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 and 1002; 20 U.S.C. 1099b; 20 
U.S.C. 1087aa, 1087dd, and 1091
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 600.9; 34 CFR 600.11; 34 CFR 674.9.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Various provisions of the Department's regulations 
regarding the eligibility of faith-based entities to participate in the 
Department's higher education and student aid programs, and the 
eligibility of students to participate in student aid programs and 
obtain certain benefits under those programs, unnecessarily restrict 
participation by religious entities. For example, some provisions may 
be overly broad in their prohibition of activities or services that 
relate to sectarian instruction or religious worship. Other provisions 
may be overly broad in prohibiting the benefits a borrower may receive 
based on faith-based activity. The Department is proposing to review 
and amend, through negotiated rulemaking, such regulations in order to 
be consistent with current law, and to reduce or eliminate unnecessary 
burdens and restrictions on religious entities and activities.
    Statement of Need: Rulemaking is necessary in light of the recent 
United States Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of 
Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017), and the October 6, 
2017, Memorandum for All Executive Agencies issued by the Attorney 
General of the United States pursuant to Executive Order No. 13798.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to 
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of 
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
    Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed 
topic and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and 
clarify current regulations for postsecondary institutions and 
accreditors.
    Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking 
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for 
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda. 
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public 
hearings inviting comment on our Federal Register notice outlining our 
intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments received, 
the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for negotiation 
and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about 
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
    Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated 
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus. 
To account for this the Department will provide draft language prior to 
the first session of three sessions (each session is three days long) 
of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has been used 
as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking committee 
and the Department provides more specific proposals to the rulemaking 
committee between the first and second session.
    Also, the Department will form two subcommittees, one specifically 
for faith-based entities. These committees will report back to the main 
rulemaking committee with their reports.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence        07/31/18  83 FR 36814
 Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Lynn Mahaffie, Department of Education, Office of 
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202, 
Phone: 202 453-6914.
    RIN: 1840-AD40

ED--OPE

37.  Teach Grants

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070g, et seq.
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 686.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department is proposing to amend, through negotiated

[[Page 57853]]

rulemaking, the regulations relating to the Teacher Education 
Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant. Our goal is 
to simplify and clarify program requirements, minimize inadvertent 
grant-to-loan conversions, and improve outcomes for TEACH Grant 
recipients.
    Statement of Need: As required by Executive Order 13771 and 13777, 
the Department must identify regulations that are among other things 
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective and create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives 
and policies. Our goal is to simplify and clarify program requirements, 
minimize inadvertent grant-to-loan conversions, and improve outcomes 
for TEACH Grant recipients.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has the authority to 
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with the purpose of 
creating, amending or rescinding regulations in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
    Alternatives: One alternative is not to negotiate on the proposed 
topic and instead work on sub-regulatory guidance to ease burden and 
clarify current regulations to the loan servicer that overseas TEACH 
grant servicing.
    Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking 
committee has already been published; the topics proposed for 
negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda. 
Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public 
hearings inviting comment on our Federal Register notice outlining our 
intent to negotiate. After reviewing feedback from comments received, 
the Department may choose to modify the topics proposed for negotiation 
and at that time we can more thoughtfully provide alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We have limited information about 
the potential cost and benefits and cannot estimate at this time.
    Risks: By negotiating on a wide range of topics in one negotiated 
rulemaking panel there is an increased risk on not reaching consensus. 
To account for this, the Department will provide draft language prior 
to the first session of three sessions (each session is three days 
long) of negotiated rulemaking. Historically, the first session has 
been used as a listening session to get feedback from the rulemaking 
committee and the Department provides more specific proposals to the 
rulemaking committee between the first and second session.
    Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the 
main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to 
discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language 
to the main committee.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence        07/31/18  83 FR 36814
 Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Sophia McArdle, Department of Education, Office of 
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202, 
Phone: 202 453-6318.
    RIN: 1840-AD44

ED--OPE

Final Rule Stage

38. Institutional Accountability

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1082(a)(5), (a)(6); 20 U.S.C. 1087(a); 
20 U.S.C. 1087e(h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1226a-1; 20 U.S.C. 
1234(a); 31 U.S.C. 3711
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 668; 34 CFR 674; 34 CFR 682; 34 CFR 685; and 
other sections as applicable.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Secretary plans to establish new regulations 
governing the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program 
regarding the standard and the process for determining whether a 
borrower has a defense to repayment on a loan based on an act or 
omission of a school. We also may amend other sections of the Direct 
Loan Program regulations, including those that codify our current 
policy regarding the impact that discharges have on the 150 percent 
Direct Subsidized Loan Limit; and the Student Assistance General 
Provisions regulations providing the financial responsibility standards 
and disclosure requirements for schools. In addition, we may amend the 
discharge provisions in the Federal Perkins Loan, Direct Loan and 
Federal Family Education Loan program regulations.
    Statement of Need: The Secretary initiated negotiated rulemaking to 
revise current regulations governing borrower defenses to loan 
repayment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 492 of the HEA requires that, 
before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs 
authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public 
involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After 
obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary 
conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations. 
Section 431 of the Department of Education Organization Act provides 
authority to the Secretary, in relevant part, to inform the public 
regarding federally supported education programs; and collect data and 
information on applicable programs for the purpose of obtaining 
objective measurements of the effectiveness of such programs in 
achieving the intended purposes of such programs. 20 U.S.C. 1231a.
    Alternatives: These are identified through the negotiated 
rulemaking process and presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These are identified through the 
negotiated rulemaking process and presented in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
    Risks: These are identified through the negotiated rulemaking 
process and presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence        06/16/17  82 FR 27640
 Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................   07/31/18  83 FR 37242
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/30/18
Final Action........................   01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Annmarie Weisman, Department of Education, Office 
of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 287-25, 
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 453-6712, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1840-AD26


[[Page 57854]]



ED--OPE

39. Program Integrity; Gainful Employment

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3474; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 668.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Secretary plans to amend regulations on institutional 
eligibility under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 
and the Student Assistance General Provisions, including the 
regulations governing whether certain postsecondary educational 
programs prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized 
occupation, and the conditions under which these educational programs 
remain eligible under the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under 
title IV of the HEA.
    Statement of Need: The Secretary initiated negotiated rulemaking to 
revise the gainful employment regulations published by the Department 
on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64889). The negotiated rulemaking committee 
did not reach consensus and the Department proposed new regulations to 
rescind the gainful employment regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 492 of the HEA requires that, 
before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs 
authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public 
involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After 
obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary 
conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations. 
Section 431 of the Department of Education Organization Act provides 
authority to the Secretary, in relevant part, to inform the public 
regarding federally supported education programs; and collect data and 
information on applicable programs for the purpose of obtaining 
objective measurements of the effectiveness of such programs in 
achieving the intended purposes of such programs. 20 U.S.C. 1231a.
    Alternatives: These are identified through the negotiated 
rulemaking process and presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These are identified through the 
negotiated rulemaking process and presented in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
    Risks: These are identified through the negotiated rulemaking 
process and presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intention to Commence        06/16/17  82 FR 27640
 Negotiated Rulemaking.
NPRM................................   08/14/18  83 FR 40167
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/13/18
Final Action........................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Annmarie Weisman, Department of Education, Office 
of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 287-25, 
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 453-6712, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1840-AD31

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) makes vital 
contributions to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on 
improving national security, energy supply, energy efficiency, 
environmental remediation, and energy research. The Department's 
mission is to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing 
its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through 
transformative science and technology solutions.
    Through its regulatory and deregulatory activities, the Department 
works to ensure it both achieves its critical mission, and implements 
the administration's initiative to reduce regulation and control 
regulatory costs as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, 
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' As such, the 
Department strives to act in a prudent and financially responsible 
manner in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private 
sources, and manages appropriately the costs associated with private 
expenditures required for compliance with DOE regulations. Ultimately, 
DOE aims to promote meaningful regulatory burden reduction, while also 
achieving its regulatory objectives and meeting its statutory 
obligations.

Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    DOE's regulatory and deregulatory priorities reflect the 
Department's efforts to achieve meaningful burden reduction while 
continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations.
    DOE is engaged in a number of deregulatory activities aimed at 
reducing regulatory costs and burdens. These activities include 
amending regulations to expedite the preparation of and simplify the 
content of Notices of Sale for the price competitive sale of petroleum 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which in turn will reduce 
the administrative burden placed on prospective bidders. Another 
important deregulatory action concerns modernizing the procedures for 
establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures as part 
of DOE's Appliance Program. Also, DOE published a final rule that will 
provide for faster approval of applications for small-scale exports of 
natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), from U.S. export 
facilities.

Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' That Order stated 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 stated it is essential to manage the costs 
associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures 
required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, E.O. 
13771 requires, among other things, that whenever an agency proposes 
for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, the 
agency must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. 
E.O. 13771 also provides for the establishment of agency regulatory 
cost budgets, as identified by the Office of Management and Budget.
    Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' That Order required 
that the head of each agency designate an agency official as its 
Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation 
of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies 
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable 
law. Further, E.O. 13777 required the establishment of a regulatory 
reform task force at each agency. The regulatory reform task force 
makes recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, 
replacement, or

[[Page 57855]]

modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law.
    In implementation of both Orders, on May 30, 2017, DOE published in 
the Federal Register a Request for Information (RFI), seeking input and 
other assistance from entities significantly affected by regulations of 
the DOE, including State, local, and Tribal governments, small 
businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and 
manufacturers and their trade associations. DOE's goal in publishing 
the RFI was to ``create a systematic method for identifying those 
existing DOE rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, or 
simply no longer make sense.'' DOE solicited views on: (a) How DOE 
could best conduct its analysis of existing agency actions, and (b) 
insights on specific rules or Department-imposed obligations that 
should be altered or eliminated. DOE received 132 separate public 
comments from decision-makers, stakeholders, and the public on rules 
promulgated by DOE and the burdens some of those rules have imposed.
    In response to the May 30, 2017, RFI, DOE received many comments 
recommending that DOE update and modernize its procedures for 
establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for the 
DOE Appliance Program, otherwise known as the ``Process Rule.'' The 
current Process Rule can be found in Appendix A to Subpart C of part 
430 of the Code of Federal Regulations, published on July 15, 1996. In 
response to stakeholder input, DOE published a RFI on December 18, 2017 
(82 FR 59992), seeking comments and information from interested parties 
to assist DOE in identifying potential modifications to its ``Process 
Rule.'' DOE conducted a public meeting and webinar on January 9, 2018, 
that was widely attended by a broad spectrum of stakeholders. DOE is 
currently preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), taking into 
account the many suggestions from stakeholders, and is including this 
proposed rule as part of its 2018 Regulatory Plan. DOE has 
characterized this action as deregulatory.
    The second deregulatory action that is part of DOE's 2018 
Regulatory Plan is a rule that proposes to withdraw the revised 
definitions of general service lamps (GSL) and general service 
incandescent lamps (GSIL) that would otherwise take effect on January 
1, 2020. This proposal would maintain the existing statutory 
definitions of GSL and GSIL currently found in the Department's 
regulations.
    Lastly, DOE is placing one action in its Regulatory Plan: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products 
(1904-AD15), even though it does not meet the Regulatory Plan criterion 
of ``most important significant regulatory actions'' of the agency. DOE 
has included this regulatory action for the purpose of transparency and 
due to the non-trivial costs of the proposed action. At the 7% and 3% 
discount rate the primary annualized cost of this rule could be as much 
as 42.6 million and 42.3 million dollars, respectively. The primary 
annualized benefits at the 7% and 3% discount rate have been projected 
to be 126 million and 178 million dollars, respectively.

DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)

Proposed Rule Stage

40. Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking 
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.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(h).
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 429; 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, Subject to 6-year-look-back at 
6295(m).
    Abstract: EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, requires the Secretary to 
determine whether updating the statutory energy conservation standards 
for residential conventional cooking products would yield a significant 
savings in energy use and is technically feasible and economically 
justified. DOE is reviewing to make such determination.
    Statement of Need: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for 
various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial 
equipment, including residential conventional cooking products. EPCA 
also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether 
more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. 
DOE is proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for 
residential conventional cooking products, specifically conventional 
cooking tops and conventional ovens.
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPCA provides that not later than 6 years 
after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, 
DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for 
the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed 
rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
    Alternatives: Additional compliance flexibilities may be available 
through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual 
gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may 
apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation 
standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective 
date of a final rule establishing the standard (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)). 
Additionally, section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 
42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule 
issued under EPCA in order to prevent special hardship, inequity, or 
unfair distribution of burdens that may be imposed on that 
manufacturer.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Using a 7-percent discount rate for 
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products is $42.6 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are 
$120.3 million in reduced equipment operating costs.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products is $42.3 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $163.3 million in 
reduced operating costs.
    In determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE 
must consider whether the benefits of the standard exceed the burdens 
by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering 7 enumerated 
factors, including the economic impact of the standard on 
manufacturers. DOE uses industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of 
the discounted cash flows to the industry from the reference year 
through the end of the analysis period (2017 to 2049), to determine 
manufacturer impact. Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE 
estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer conventional 
cooking products is $1,241.6 million in 2016 dollars. Under the 
proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may experience a 
reduction of up to 4.7 percent of their

[[Page 57856]]

INPV, which is approximately $58.4 million in 2016.
    The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits 
of the standards for consumer conventional cooking products ranges from 
$1.08 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.63 billion (at a 3-
percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of 
future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product 
costs for consumer conventional cooking products purchased in 2020-
2049.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   02/12/14  79 FR 8337
RFI Comment Period End..............   03/14/14  .......................
RFI Comment Period Extended.........   03/03/14  79 FR 11714
RFI Comment Period Extended End.....   04/14/14  .......................
NPRM and Public Meeting.............   06/10/15  80 FR 33030
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/30/15  80 FR 45452
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   09/09/15  .......................
Supplemental NPRM...................   09/02/16  81 FR 60784
SNPRM Comment Period Extended.......   09/30/16  81 FR 67219
SNPRM Comment Period Extended End...   11/02/16  .......................
Supplemental NPRM...................   02/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL For More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=85.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0005.
    Agency Contact: Stephanie Johnson, General Engineer, Department of 
Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW, Building Technologies Office, EE5B, Washington, DC 20002, 
Phone: 202 287-1943, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AD15

DOE--EE

41. Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New 
or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: DOE is considering a notice-and-comment rulemaking to 
amend its Process Improvement Rule (``Process Rule'') to reflect 
statutory changes as well as innovative, collaborative approaches that 
DOE has been using to reflect more efficient appliance standards 
rulemaking.
    Statement of Need: DOE is proposing to update and modernize its 
procedures for establishing energy conservation standards and test 
procedures for the DOE Appliance Program, otherwise known as the 
``Process Rule.'' This proposed rule would reduce burdens on all 
stakeholders when engaging in the rulemaking process.
    Summary of Legal Basis: On July 15, 1996, DOE published a final 
rule titled, ``Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for 
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for 
Consumer Products.'' This document was codified at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart C, appendix A. As explained in the final rule for the Process 
Rule, this rule came within the scope of the Administrative Procedure 
Act's exemption from notice-and-comment rulemaking for procedural rules 
at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Although DOE's current rulemaking to consider 
potential revisions to the Process Rule might similarly warrant 
exemption from notice-and-comment requirements, DOE nonetheless seeks 
input from interested parties regarding potential avenues to improve 
DOE's procedures.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   10/31/14  79 FR 64705
RFI Comment Period End..............   12/30/14  .......................
Request for Information (RFI) and      12/18/17  82 FR 59992
 Notice of Public Meeting.
RFI Comment Period Extended.........   02/07/18  83 FR 5374
RFI Comment Period Extended End.....   03/02/18  .......................
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: energy.gov/eere/buildings/standards-and-test-procedures.
    Agency Contact: John Cymbalsky, Building Technologies Office, EE-
5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 287-1692, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AD38

DOE--EE

42.  Energy Conservation Program: Definition for General 
Service Lamps

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department proposes to withdraw the revised 
definitions of general service lamp (GSL) and general service 
incandescent lamp (GSIL) that take effect on January 1, 2020. This 
proposal would maintain the existing statutory definitions of GSL and 
GSIL currently found in the Department's regulations.
    Statement of Need: DOE is proposing to withdraw the revised 
definitions of General Service Lamps (GSL) and general service 
incandescent lamps (GSIL) that would otherwise take effect on January 
1, 2020, to reduce the regulatory burdens on stakeholders.
    Summary of Legal Basis: On August 15, 2017, DOE published a notice 
of data availability and request for information (NODA) seeking data 
for GSILs and other incandescent lamps. The purpose of this NODA was to 
assist DOE in making a determination regarding amending standards for 
GSILs. Comments submitted in response to the NODA lead DOE to re-
consider the decisions it had already made with respect to the 
definitions for GSLs and GSILs.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.

[[Page 57857]]

    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Celia Sher, Attorney-Advisor, Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202 287-6122.
    RIN: 1904-AE26

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2019

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) carries out a 
wide array of activities in order to fulfill its mission of protecting 
and promoting the health and well-being of the American people. From 
supporting cutting-edge research and disease surveillance, to 
regulating products and facilities, to administering programs that help 
our citizens most in need of access to healthcare and social services, 
HHS's work has a clear impact on the daily life of all Americans. As 
the federal agency most deeply involved in more than one-sixth of the 
US economy, it is imperative that HHS be attentive to the costs of 
over-regulation. Building on the progress that HHS has made in Fiscal 
Year 2018, the Department will continue to find ways to clarify its 
regulations to ease the burden of public compliance, or to remove them 
where feasible to avoid unnecessarily diverting resources from the 
private sector while simultaneously ensuring the integrity of HHS 
programs.
    HHS is committed to a regulatory agenda that is focused on better 
meeting the needs of the individuals served by its programs, informed 
by an understanding that excess and unclear federal regulation not only 
imposes serious burdens on job creation and the economy as a whole, but 
also that the opportunity costs from overregulation dampen provider 
productivity and medical product innovation, which undermines HHS's own 
ultimate core mission. Through its rulemakings in the coming fiscal 
year, HHS will take concrete steps towards reducing and streamlining 
its regulations and improving the transparency, flexibility, and 
accountability of its regulatory processes.

I. Advancing Secretary Azar's Priorities Through Rulemaking

    Since his confirmation as the twenty-fourth Secretary of Health and 
Human Services in January 2018, Secretary Alex Azar has focused the 
Department's efforts on four priorities. These initiatives--combatting 
the opioid crisis; increasing the affordability and accessibility of 
individual health insurance; tackling the high cost of prescription 
drugs; and moving to a value-based healthcare system--renew the 
substantial efforts made by the Department in these areas over the past 
year and a half and have the potential to deliver lasting change across 
America's healthcare system.

Combatting the Opioid Crisis

    One of the most pressing public health problems of our time, the 
opioid crisis has steadily grown over the past several decades and is 
now impacting communities across the country. In addition to providing 
unprecedented levels of support for states, local governments, and 
community organizations working to combat this crisis, HHS is exploring 
ways to enhance our nation's response through critically examining its 
regulations. To reduce opioid misuse without restricting access to 
legitimate services, Medicaid programs can utilize several medical 
management techniques, including quantity limits of short-acting and 
long-acting opioids. The President's FY 2019 Budget includes a proposal 
that would establish minimum standards for Medicaid Drug Utilization 
Review programs. Currently, CMS does not set minimum requirements for 
these programs, and there is substantial variation in how states 
approach this issue. Establishing minimum standards would not only help 
increase oversight of opioid prescriptions and dispensing in Medicaid, 
but would save the program an estimated $245 million over 10 years.
    Additionally, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration (SAMHSA) is considering updating its regulations 
governing medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD) 
by deleting outdated provisions and revising reporting requirements for 
providers with waivers to treat up to 275 patients with OUD. SAMHSA 
will also provide guidance and consider additional changes to 42 CFR 
part 2 that can foster further alignment with the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Furthermore, although many 
covered entities believe that the HIPAA Privacy Rule precludes such 
disclosures, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) plans to propose a rule 
clarifying the Privacy Rule provisions most applicable to information 
sharing with family members or others when patients are incapacitated. 
This would reduce uncertainties about the ability of covered entities 
to disclose patient information to family members, friends, or others 
best positioned to help individuals suffering with a substance use 
disorder or serious mental illness.

Strengthening Individual Health Insurance Programs

    In addition, strengthening program integrity with respect to 
subsidy payments in the individual markets is a top priority of this 
Administration. In furtherance of that goal, the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services (CMS) will publish an Exchange Program Integrity rule 
focusing on ensuring that eligible enrollees receive the correct 
advanced payments of the premium tax credit, conducting effective and 
efficient oversight of State-Based Exchanges, and protecting the 
interests of taxpayers, consumers, and the financial integrity of 
Federally Facilitated Exchanges. CMS, through its annual Payment Notice 
for the Exchanges, will also emphasize deregulation and increasing 
flexibility for states and issuers. CMS will continue to work with the 
Tri-Departments to explore allowing more flexibility in the 
availability of health plans in the individual and small group markets, 
as well as carrying out the instructions in the President's October 12, 
2017, Executive Order to consider expanding the use of health 
reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).
    HHS' forthcoming report on promoting competition and choice will 
also inform HHS' efforts in this area and help drive positive change.
    These initiatives will help restore market forces to ensure 
consumers have plans to choose from that meet their needs.

Tackling the High Cost of Prescription Drugs

    In May 2018, Secretary Azar unveiled the President's blueprint to 
tackle the high cost of prescription drugs, American Patients First. 
HHS is aggressively working on actions the President may direct HHS to 
take immediately as well as the consideration of actions on which 
feedback was solicited in the blueprint. As a part of this ongoing 
effort, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to propose 
regulations to facilitate access to more treatments for common 
conditions and potentially some chronic conditions by using innovative 
approaches, including new technologies, to assist consumers in self-
selection and use of drug products that have previously been available 
only by prescription. If finalized, FDA believes this rule will improve 
public health and lower costs by increasing the number and types of 
medications that are available without a prescription.

[[Page 57858]]

Changes CMS plans to make in its annual Part C and D rules, and 
potentially other mechanisms, are likewise seeking to improve health 
and lower costs for American patients.

Transforming Our Healthcare System Into One That Pays for Value

    Over the years, it has become increasingly apparent that the United 
States' fee-for-service payment system does not incentivize innovative 
therapies and intelligent treatment plans for patients. Previous 
Congresses and administrations have attempted to alleviate these 
problems through patchwork attempts at introducing innovative payment 
models. Now, under Secretary Azar's leadership, HHS will undertake 
efforts to comprehensively address this issue and attempt to rebuild 
our healthcare system into one that truly incentivizes effective, 
efficient patient care by paying for value. As an early step in this 
effort, CMS plans to propose regulatory revisions to address the impact 
of the physician self-referral (commonly known as ``Stark'') law and 
encourage coordinated care. Additionally, OCR will be examining the 
HIPAA rules for obstacles that may limit or discourage coordinated care 
or otherwise impose regulatory burdens that may impede the 
transformation to value-based healthcare, without providing 
commensurate privacy or security protections for patients' protected 
health information (PHI). HHS' forthcoming report on promoting 
competition and choice will also inform HHS' efforts in this area and 
help drive positive change.

II. Empowering the American People Through Reducing Regulatory Burden 
and Clarifying Regulation

    In addition to these four priorities, HHS has been comprehensively 
reviewing its regulations to find ways to reduce burdens on states, 
grantees, industries, and individuals. Regulatory burden can result 
from a variety of sources, including reporting requirements, outdated 
restrictions, requirements and/or conditions not required by the 
authorizing statutes, and a lack of clear regulatory guidelines. HHS is 
committed to streamlining and clarifying its regulations to reduce 
unnecessary burden while continuing to protect the public health and to 
meet the human services needs of the American people.

Minimizing Duplicative Requirements and Eliminating Obsolete 
Regulations

    The Department recognizes the burden that requirements for many of 
its programs place on states, territories, tribes, local governments, 
industry, providers and facilities, caseworkers, grant recipients, and 
individuals. HHS plans to actively engage stakeholders in transparent, 
deliberative processes to ensure that the Department reduces burden 
while continuing to administer high-quality programs. For example, the 
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) plans to issue a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on its proposal to 
streamline the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 
(AFCARS), which doubled reporting requirements for states and tribes. 
Through careful consideration of all comments submitted by the public 
to its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in March 2018, ACF 
believes it can streamline the 2016 Rule so that state and tribal IV-E 
agencies are able to devote less time and fewer resources to 
administrative work and to redirect those efforts to the children they 
serve.
    In addition to minimizing regulatory burden, HHS realizes that many 
of its regulations may contain provisions that are outdated, obsolete, 
or otherwise not applicable to the current environment. HHS has 
resolved to reform its processes so that those providing care and other 
services to Americans are able to thrive within the state and federal 
regulatory environment. As an early step in this broader effort, CMS 
plans to issue a proposed rule that will remove unnecessary and 
outdated requirements from the conditions of participation for the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs for Long-Term Care facilities. 
Currently, these requirements often impede the delivery of quality care 
and divert resources away from facility residents.

Providing Necessary Regulatory Clarity to Industry Stakeholders

    As part of efforts to streamline regulation, in some cases, 
regulation is necessary in order to make HHS's processes transparent 
and predictable. This year, FDA plans to continue work on needed 
implementing regulations for its tobacco program. Rulemaking is needed 
to clarify for industry the submission and review processes for various 
review pathways as part of a comprehensive framework to regulate 
nicotine and tobacco and advance the public health. In addition, FDA is 
updating important rules for medical device applications so the rules 
reflect risk-based and least burdensome pathways to market for devices, 
including new and innovative devices. These rules will fill gaps to 
ensure that manufacturers in these sectors know how to bring innovative 
products to market that may save lives or reduce health risks. FDA 
intends to continue rulemaking this fiscal year to fill these 
regulatory gaps so that these processes become more fair, efficient, 
and predictable.

Protecting the Exercise of Conscience Rights

    Religious and faith-based organizations and individuals have 
historically played an important role in providing needed health care 
and human services. However, regulatory and other burdens on religious 
freedom and conscience that discourage such organizations and 
individuals from participating in HHS programs have been often 
overlooked in recent years. HHS has taken a number of steps to rectify 
the situation in the past year and plans to continue work to ensure 
that HHS's programs respect religious liberty and conscience--and to 
relieve burden on the exercise of religion and conscience. In order to 
adequately protect these First Amendment and statutory rights, HHS 
plans to complete a rulemaking to implement and enforce a number of 
HHS-specific conscience laws and protections, in order to help ensure 
that individuals participating in HHS-funded health programs are aware 
of their conscience rights, that recipients of HHS funds comply with 
their obligations to respect such rights, and that there are 
enforcement procedures for such conscience protections that are 
comparable to other civil rights. Additionally, in finalizing its 
update to the Title X family planning regulations, HHS plans to ensure 
that the conscience rights of Title X providers are respected.

III. Harnessing Regulatory Reform To Encourage Innovation

    In addition to reducing burden, an important outcome of regulatory 
reform efforts is the proliferation of innovative solutions and 
programs structured to suit the needs of unique problems and 
populations. HHS is committed to promoting innovation through a variety 
of mechanisms, including deregulatory actions.

Promoting Flexibility for States, Grantees, and Regulated Entities

    HHS intends to enhance regulatory flexibility so that its state and 
community partners are able to better tailor their programs to meet the 
needs of the people they serve. Over the past year and a half, the 
Department has been looking seriously at its programs to see how it can 
maximize the number of people reached through amending its regulations 
to remove or change

[[Page 57859]]

regulatory limitations on grantees and regulated entities. For example, 
ACF plans to consider revising minimum service duration requirements 
for Head Start center-based programs to allow these programs to serve 
more children or better meet the needs and daily schedules of local 
families. Rulemaking carried out in 2016 nearly doubled the current 
minimum.

Keeping Pace With 21st Century Science

    In order to best respond to the needs of patients, it is crucial 
that HHS regulations and programs reflect current science. HHS is 
fulfilling this need by updating regulations so that the Department can 
utilize the full spectrum of current scientific thinking when carrying 
out program activities. Specifically, HRSA plans to revise the Vaccine 
Injury Table to include vaccines that the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC) recommends for administration to pregnant women. 
This revision will allow injuries related to these vaccines to be 
eligible for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 
Additionally, FDA intends to propose a new rule that will modernize 
mammography quality by recognizing new technologies, making 
improvements in facility processes, and updating reporting 
requirements. FDA believes that these changes will improve the delivery 
of mammography services and allow for more informed decision-making by 
strengthening the communication of health care information.
    FDA is also taking action to facilitate food innovations that can 
give consumers more choices and enable better nutrition. Diet is a 
powerful tool for reducing chronic disease and its impact on the 
healthcare system. Modernizing the outdated framework for food 
standards will allow industry flexibility for innovation to produce 
more healthful foods while maintaining the basic nature and nutritional 
integrity of key food products. FDA will reopen the comment period on 
its earlier proposed rule soliciting updated information to guide 
development of a modern approach to regulating food standards and 
related labeling.

Summary

    In the coming fiscal year, HHS plans to consider a number of 
deregulatory actions, accompanied by regulatory changes intended to 
make its processes more flexible, efficient, and transparent. In order 
to fully realize the potential of these efforts, HHS recognizes the 
need for a collaborative rulemaking process where the concerns of 
patients, providers, States, tribes, faith-based and community 
organizations, and other stakeholders are appropriately considered. By 
working with its partners in bringing better healthcare and human 
services to the American people, and understanding the challenges that 
they face under HHS's current regulatory structures, the Department 
will continue to modernize its role in this critical sector of the 
national economy, assuring its vitality and the increased wellbeing of 
those it serves.

HHS--OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR)

Prerule Stage

43. HIPAA Privacy: Request for Information on Changes To Support, and 
Remove Barriers To, Coordinated Care

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 115-5, sec. 13405(c)
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 164.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 1, 2010, The statutory 
deadline to issue a rule on accounting of disclosures was 06/01/2010.
    Required by the HITECH Act. Statutory deadline contingent on 
further regulatory action.
    Abstract: This Request for Information (RFI) would solicit the 
public's views on whether there are provisions of the HIPAA Rules which 
present barriers that limit or discourage coordinated care and case 
management among hospitals, physicians (and other providers), payors, 
and patients, or otherwise impose regulatory burdens that may impede 
the transformation to value-based health care without providing 
commensurate privacy or security protections for patients' protected 
health information and while maintaining patients' ability to control 
the use or disclosure of their PHI and to access PHI. In addition to a 
general request for information, the RFI would specifically seek 
comment on a number of particular issues, including: (1) Methods of 
accounting of all disclosures of a patient's protected health 
information; (2) patients' acknowledgment of receipt of a providers' 
notice of privacy practices; (3) creation of a safeharbor for good 
faith disclosures of PHI for purposes of care coordination or case 
management; (4) disclosures of protected health information without a 
patient's authorization for treatment, payment, and health care 
operations; (5) the minimum necessary standard/requirement. This RFI 
would subsume the previous 0945-AA08 entry in the Regulatory Agenda.
    Statement of Need: The HHS Deputy Secretary recently launched an 
initiative called the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care. The goal 
of the Regulatory Sprint is to remove regulatory barriers that impede 
coordinated, value-based health care. This RFI is being produced to 
support the Regulatory Sprint.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The HIPAA statute and its amendments.
    Alternatives: None were considered as this RFI is intended to 
solicit various policies for improving HIPAA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: No anticipated costs as this is not 
regulatory. Benefits include receiving public feedback on potential 
policies to pursue in rulemaking.
    Risks: None known.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/31/11  76 FR 31426
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/01/11
NPRM Withdrawal.....................   11/00/18
RFI.................................   11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL For More Information: www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy.
    Agency Contact: Andra Wicks, Health Information Privacy Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, 200 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 774-3081, TDD 
Phone: 800 537-7697, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0945-AA00

HHS--OCR

Proposed Rule Stage

44. HIPAA Privacy Rule: Presumption of Good Faith of Health Care 
Providers

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
(HIPAA) Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-191
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 164.510.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In an effort to address the opioid epidemic, the proposed 
rule would make a number of changes to

[[Page 57860]]

provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule regarding uses and disclosures of 
protected health information to ease the burden on and potential risks 
to covered entities that may want to disclose PHI in such 
circumstances.
    Statement of Need: With over 60,000 individuals dying of opioid 
overdoses in 2016 and others suffering from addiction to the opiates, 
HHS issued a declaration of emergency to recognize a nationwide opioid 
epidemic. HIPAA permits providers and other covered entities to 
disclose protected health information about an individual to families, 
caregivers and other relevant parties in circumstances related to 
opioid overdose and addiction. Despite this permission and HHS guidance 
clarifying HIPAA, HHS continues to receive anecdotal evidence that 
providers and other covered entities are reluctant to share an opioid 
patient's health information with family or other caregivers.This 
proposal seeks to encourage covered entities to share protected health 
information with family members, caregivers, and others in a position 
to avert threats of harm to health and safety when necessary to promote 
the health and recovery of those struggling with opioid addiction.
    Summary of Legal Basis: OCR has broad authority under the HIPAA 
statute to make modifications to the Privacy Rule, within the statutory 
constraints of HIPAA, the HITECH Act, and other applicable law (e.g., 
the Administrative Procedures Act). OCR, by delegation from the 
Secretary, has broad authority under HIPAA to make modifications to the 
Privacy Rule, as provided by section 264 of HIPAA (codified at 42 
U.S.C. 1320d-2(note)).
    Alternatives: OCR may issue additional guidance as an alternative 
to the proposed rule. However, HIPAA continues to be cited as a barrier 
to sharing protected health information in crisis situations, despite 
extensive existing guidance and outreach efforts. Without regulatory 
changes, it is not clear that additional guidance would be effective in 
clarifying the ability to share protected health information in such 
situations. Revising the Privacy Rule would be a more effective and 
permanent vehicle for achieving the desired policy, and would provide 
additional Good Samaritan safe harbor protections to health care 
providers who share protected health information when trying to help 
patients.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule will not create 
any new requirements or costs for regulated entities or the public. It 
will benefit patients and families by helping to ensure that family 
members and others involved in the patients' care can get the 
information they need to help their loved ones obtain appropriate care 
and support. It will also provide additional protections to health care 
providers exercising their professional judgment when making 
disclosures of protected health information to further the interests of 
patients.
    Risks: While we do not anticipate significant risks to privacy 
associated with this proposal, the NPRM requests public input on 
whether the impact of these amendments, taken together, could be 
expected to discourage individuals from seeking care based on concerns 
that their PHI may be disclosed against their wishes.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Andra Wicks, Health Information Privacy Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, 200 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 774-3081, TDD 
Phone: 800 537-7697, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0945-AA09

HHS--OCR

Final Rule Stage

45. Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations 
of Authority

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 115-31; 22 U.S.C. 7631(d); 26 U.S.C. 
5000A(d)(2); 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 300a-7; 42 U.S.C. 238n; 
secs. 1553, 280g-1(d), 290bb-36(f), 1320a-1, 1320c-11, 1395cc(f), 
1395i-5, 1395w-22(j)(3)(B), 1395x(e), 1395x(y)(1); 1396a(a), 
1396a(w)(3), 1396f, 1396s(c)(2)(B)(ii), 1396u-2(b)(3)(B), 1397j-1(b), 
1553, 5106i(a); 18113s, 18023(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iii), 18023(b)(1)(A), 
18023(b)(4), 18113; . . .
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 88.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule would provide for the implementation and 
enforcement of the Federal health care conscience and associated anti-
discrimination laws.
    Statement of Need: Revision of the current conscience rule is 
necessary to provide proper enforcement tools to address unlawful 
discrimination, coercion and hostility, which has been the subject of a 
rising number of complaints before OCR and in Federal courts and raised 
questions from Congressional oversight. Clarity about existing 
conscience protections is needed to reduce confusion about the law. 
Furthermore, the Department lacks strategic coordination across its 
components and enforcement tools that are available to remedy invidious 
discrimination under other protected bases.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The rule would enforce and implement health 
care conscience and associated anti-discrimination statutes that 
protect health care providers and patients in these areas as prescribed 
by Congress: (1) Conscience protections related to abortion, 
sterilization, and certain other health services to participants in 
programs and their personnel funded by the Department; (2) conscience 
protections for health care entities related to abortion provision or 
training, referral for such abortion or training, or accreditation 
standards related to abortion; (3) protections from discrimination for 
health care entities and individuals who object to furthering or 
participating in abortion under programs funded by the Department's 
yearly appropriations acts; (4) conscience protections under the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act related to assisted suicide, 
individual mandate, and other matters of conscience; (5) conscience 
protections for objections to counseling and referral for certain 
services in Medicaid or Medicare Advantage; (6) conscience protections 
related to the performance of advanced directives; (7) conscience 
protections related to Global Health Programs to the extent 
administered by the Secretary; (8) exemptions from compulsory health 
care or services generally and under specific programs for hearing 
screenings, occupational illness testing, vaccination, and mental 
health treatment; and (9) protections for religious nonmedical health 
care.
    Alternatives: Maintaining the status quo by enforcing 45 CFR part 
88 as it currently exists creates a significant risk of unaddressed 
violations of conscience laws, and leaves few remedies available due to 
OCR's administrative enforcement scheme and court decisions holding 
that Congress did not incorporate into its conscience statutes for 
parties to file private rights of action in the courts.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Protection of religious beliefs and 
moral convictions is a broad qualitative benefit

[[Page 57861]]

that serves individual rights and society as a whole, and protection of 
conscience reduces barriers to entry, combats attrition, and increases 
diversity of providers in the health care field. Costs of $311 million 
in the first year and $124.6 million per year in years 2 through 5 are 
estimated to be incurred for familiarization with the law, preparation 
of notices and assurances of compliance, compliance procedures and 
voluntary remedial efforts. Costs for OCR enforcement are $1 million in 
the first year and $1 million per year in years 2 through 5.
    Risks: Enforcement of these conscience laws could risk reduction in 
access to health care services in low provider populated areas.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/26/18  83 FR 3880
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/27/18  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Sarah Bayko-Albrecht, Supervisory Analyst, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, 200 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 800 368-1019, TDD 
Phone: 800 537-7697, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0945-AA10

HHS--SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

46. Revising Outdated Requirements for Opioid Treatment Providers 
(OTPS)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: sec. 303(g) of the Controlled Substances Act 
(CSA); 21 U.S.C. 823(g)
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 8.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This planned deregulatory action would revise 42 CFR part 
8 to reduce outmoded requirements. First, SAMSHA may streamline the 
regulation by deleting now outdated requirements pertaining to 
transitional certification for opioid treatment programs (OTPs). This 
change will help make the regulation less confusing by removing a 
provision that no longer applies.
    Second, SAMSHA may alter requirements pertaining to interim 
maintenance treatment program approval.
    Statement of Need: SAMHSA plans to promulgate a rule to remove the 
transitional certification provisions that are now outdated. 
Additionally, updating language to permit private, for-profit entities 
to serve as opioid treatment programs could improve patient access to 
this treatment.
    This planned deregulatory action would revise 42 CFR part 8 to 
reduce outmoded requirements. First, SAMSHA may streamline the 
regulation by deleting now outdated requirements pertaining to 
transitional certification for opioid treatment programs (OTPs). This 
change will help make the regulation less confusing by removing a 
provision that no longer applies.
    Second, SAMSHA may alter requirements pertaining to interim 
maintenance treatment program approval.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 303(g) of the Controlled Substances 
Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 823(g) establishes procedures for determining 
whether a healthcare practitioner can dispense opioid drugs for the 
purpose of treating opioid use disorders. HHS has adopted regulations 
at 42 CFR part 8 to provide additional details. These regulations were 
most recently substantively revised in July 2016 (81 FR 44712).
    Alternatives: The alternatives include not making these changes or 
making only one of the above changes rather than both.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Eliminating outmoded transition 
regulations will make the regulations less confusing. In addition, 
permitting private, for-profit entities to qualify for certification 
potentially will broaden access to opioid treatment programs. SAMHSA is 
unsure how to quantify costs and benefits for these changes.
    Risks: The transition provisions are outdated and no longer apply. 
SAMSHA anticipates most stakeholders will support permitting private, 
for-profit entities to serve as OTPs but some may be skeptical of these 
entities as compared to nonprofits. Rescinding the reporting 
requirements for providers treating up to 275 patients should hold 
minimal risk since these providers still are bound by other 
certification requirements such as recordkeeping, etc. These reporting 
requirements initially were added in July 2016 (81 FR 66191).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Chris Carroll, Director of Health Care Financing 
and Systems Integration, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1 Choke 
Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 240 276-1765, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0930-AA27

HHS--SAMHSA

47.  Coordinating Care and Information Sharing in the Treatment 
of Substance Use Disorders

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 2.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: SAMHSA is proposing broad changes to Confidentiality of 
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) 2, also known as 42 CFR part 2 to remove barriers to coordinated 
care and permit additional sharing of information among providers and 
part 2 programs assisting patients with substance use disorders (SUDs).
    Statement of Need: SAMHSA is proposing broad changes to 
Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) 2, also known as 42 CFR part 2 to remove 
barriers to coordinated care and permit additional sharing of 
information among providers and part 2 programs assisting patients with 
substance use disorders (SUDs).
    Summary of Legal Basis: To be determined.
    Alternatives: The alternatives include not making these changes or 
making changes to part 2 more limited in scope (i.e., only in one or 
two sections).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule is not expected to be 
economically significant. As we move toward publication, estimates of 
the cost and benefits of these provisions will be included in the rule.
    Risks: SAMHSA believes the many stakeholders will support efforts 
to make it easier for patients and providers to share information under 
part 2. However, some commenters may

[[Page 57862]]

believe these changes will further undermine privacy protection under 
part 2 and lead individuals who may seek treatment to not seek 
treatment for fear of disclosure of their SUD.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Chris Carroll, Director of Health Care Financing 
and Systems Integration, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1 Choke 
Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 240 276-1765, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0930-AA32

HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

Proposed Rule Stage

48. Food Standards: General Principles and Food Standards Modernization 
(Reopening of Comment Period)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 336; 21 U.S.C. 341; 21 
U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 130.5.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FDA is reopening the comment period on a proposed rule, 
issued jointly with USDA/FSIS in 2005, that proposed to establish 
general principles that would be the first step in modernizing and 
updating the framework for food standards (also known as standards of 
identity). We are reopening the comment period because of the time that 
has elapsed since the publication of the proposed rule during which 
time there have been additional technological advances and other 
changes in the food industry which could help inform the development of 
a modernized food standards framework.
    Statement of Need: Standards of identity for foods are regulations 
Congress authorized FDA to issue to promote honesty and fair dealing in 
the interest of consumers. FDA's standards of identity have proved 
valuable in assuring that food products are consistent across different 
manufacturers. They are important for international trade as well as 
domestic trade and are critical to government expenditures on food for 
the military, for WIC (women, infants, and children) programs, and in 
school feeding programs. However, questions have been raised about 
whether the regulations concerning standards of identity should be 
revised in light of changing consumer expectations and subsequent 
developments in food technology, and global trade. In 1996, FDA and 
USDA established a task force to discuss the current and future role of 
food standards. The task force determined there were several regulatory 
options including making no change to the food standards, eliminating 
all food standards, or using resources to review and revise the food 
standards to protect consumers without inhibiting technological 
advances in food preparation and marketing. FDA and FSIS ultimately 
decided to propose amending the petition process so the standards of 
identity would be more internally consistent, flexible for 
manufacturers, and easier to administer while ensuring product quality 
and uniformity to consumers, and did so in 2005.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA has established over 280 food standards 
of identity, in addition to standards of quality and fill of container, 
under the authority set forth in section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 341). This section provides 
in part:
    Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary (of Health and Human 
Services) such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the 
interest of consumers, he shall promulgate regulations fixing and 
establishing for any food, under its common or usual name so far as 
practicable, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a 
reasonable standard of quality, or reasonable standards of fill of 
container.
    The standards of identity, quality, and fill of container for foods 
regulated by FDA are codified in title 21, parts 130 to 169 (21 CFR 
parts 130 to 169). FDA food standards are established under the common 
or usual name of a food and often specify the content of the food, 
generally in terms of the types of ingredients that it must contain 
(i.e., mandatory ingredients), and that it may contain (i.e., optional 
ingredients). FDA food standards may specify minimum and maximum levels 
of constituents. They also may describe the manufacturing process when 
that process has a bearing on the identity of the finished food. 
Finally, FDA food standards may also include provisions related to 
label declaration of ingredients and nomenclature of the food depending 
on the form, packing medium, and optional ingredients used.
    Alternatives: FDA is proposing to reopen the comment period on the 
2005 proposal, to allow for us to update the record and inform 
decisionmaking on standards of identity. The only alternative would be 
to open a docket and request comments and data on the issue generally, 
which would be a step backward. FDA does not believe it is in a 
position to develop a new proposed rule without affording stakeholders 
and the public a chance to comment and provide new data and 
information. After we have reviewed this information, we will be in a 
position to either publish a new proposed rule or to issue a final rule 
based on the full record.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There is no cost/benefit analysis 
associated with reopening a proposed rule to solicit updated comments 
and information. The preliminary regulatory impact analysis in the 
proposed rule evaluated various options and concluded that taking the 
action covered in the proposed rule will generate net social benefits, 
and concluded that the social costs of taking the proposed action are 
likely to be small. The analysis found that most of the other options 
were likely to have lower net benefits because they had lower benefits, 
higher costs, or both.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/29/95  60 FR 67492
ANPRM Comment Period End............   04/29/96  .......................
NPRM................................   05/20/05  70 FR 29214
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/18/05  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Andrea Krause, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 
240 402-2371, Fax: 301 436-2636, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0583-AC72
    RIN: 0910-AC54


[[Page 57863]]



HHS--FDA

49. Mammography Quality Standards Act; Amendments to Part 900 
Regulations

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360i; 21 U.S.C. 360nn; 21 U.S.C. 374(e); 
42 U.S.C. 263b
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 900.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FDA is proposing to amend its regulations governing 
mammography. The amendments would update the regulations issued under 
the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA). FDA is taking 
this action to address changes in mammography technology and 
mammography processes that have occurred since the regulations were 
published in 1997 and to address breast density reporting to patient 
and health care providers.
    Statement of Need: FDA is proposing to update the mammography 
regulations that were issued under the Mammography Quality Standards 
Act of 1992 (MQSA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C 
Act). FDA is taking this action to address changes in mammography 
technology and mammography processes.
    FDA is also proposing updates to modernize the regulations by 
incorporating current science and mammography best practices, including 
addressing breast density reporting to patients and health care 
providers. These updates are intended to improve the delivery of 
mammography services.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Mammography is an X-ray imaging examination 
device that is regulated under the authority of the FD&C Act. FDA is 
proposing these amendments to the mammography regulations (set forth in 
21 CFR part 900) under section 354 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 263b), and sections 519, 537, and 704(e) of the FD&C Act (21 
U.S.C. 360i, 360nn, and 374(e)).
    Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options so that 
the health benefits to patients are maximized and the economic burdens 
to mammography facilities are minimized.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary public health benefits 
of the rule will come from the potential for earlier breast cancer 
detection, improved morbidity and mortality, resulting in reductions in 
cancer treatment costs. The primary costs of the rule will come from 
industry labor costs and costs associated with supplemental testing and 
biopsies.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Erica Payne, Regulatory Counsel, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for 
Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, WO 66, 
Room 5522, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-3999, Fax: 301 847-
8145, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AH04

HHS--FDA

50. Medical Device De Novo Classification Process

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(h); 21 U.S.C. 360c, 360i-360j; 21 
U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 860.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: De novo classification decreases regulatory burdens 
because manufacturers can use a less burdensome application pathway 
under the FD&C Act to market their devices. The proposed rule would 
establish procedures and criteria for the de novo process and would 
make it more transparent and predictable for manufacturers.
    Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to implement 
amendments to the De Novo classification process in the FD&C Act that 
were enacted by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 
1997 (FDAMA), and the Food and Drug Administration Safety and 
Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), and the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 
(Cures).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), as 
amended, establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of 
medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act 
established three categories (classes) of medical devices based on the 
regulatory controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of 
safety and effectiveness of the device. In 1997, Congress enacted 
section 513()(2) to include a De Novo classification process for some 
devices for which reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness 
could be established through the De Novo process. FDASIA and cures 
expanded and modified this process.
    Alternatives: The De Novo classification process is based on 
authority from the FD&C Act. The De Novo classification program must 
continue because it is required by statute. If the proposed rule is not 
finalized, then procedures and details about the application process 
and handling of De Novo applications might be unclear to potential 
applicants, and the program may not be as efficient as it might be.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By clarifying the requirements for 
the De Novo classification process. FDA expects that the rule would 
reduce the time and costs associated with preparing and reviewing De 
Novo requests, and would generate net benefits in the form of cost 
savings for both private and government sectors.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Jean M. Olson, Regulatory Counsel, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Avenue, Building 66, Room 5508, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 
Phone: 301 796-6579, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AH53

HHS--FDA

51. Nonprescription Drug Product With an Additional Condition for 
Nonprescription Use

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 352; 21 U.S.C. 355; 21 
U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 262; 42 U.S.C. 264; . . .
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.56; 21 CFR 201.67.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule is intended to increase access to 
nonprescription drug products. The proposed rule would establish 
requirements for a drug product that

[[Page 57864]]

could be marketed as a nonprescription drug product with an additional 
condition that an applicant must implement to ensure appropriate self-
selection, appropriate actual use, or both by consumers.
    Statement of Need: Nonprescription products have traditionally been 
limited to drugs that can be labeled with information for consumers to 
safely and appropriately self-select and use the drug product without 
supervision of a health care provider. There are certain prescription 
medications that may have comparable risk-benefit profiles to over-the-
counter medications in selected populations. However, appropriate 
consumer selection and use may be difficult to achieve in the 
nonprescription setting based solely on information included in 
labeling. FDA is proposing regulations that would establish the 
requirement for a drug product could be marketed as a nonprescription 
drug product with an additional condition that an applicant must 
implement to ensure appropriate self-selection or appropriate actual 
use or both for consumers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's proposed revisions to the regulations 
regarding labeling and applications for nonprescription drug products 
labeling are authorized by the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) and by 
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264).
    Alternatives: FDA evaluated various requirements for new drug 
applications to assess flexibility of nonprescription drug product 
design through drug labeling for appropriate self-selection and 
appropriate use.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule 
would include increased consumer access to drug products which could 
translate to a reduction in under treatment of certain diseases and 
conditions. Benefits to industry would arise from the flexibility in 
drug product approval. The proposed rule would impose costs arising 
from the development of an innovative approach to assist consumers with 
nonprescription drug product self-selection or use.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Chris Wheeler, Supervisory Project Manager, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Building 51, Room 3330, Silver Spring, MD 
20993, Phone: 301 796-0151, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AH62

HHS--FDA

52. Format and Content of Reports Intended To Demonstrate Substantial 
Equivalence

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374; 21 U.S.C. 387; 42 
U.S.C. 4332
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1107.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would establish the format and content 
of reports intended to demonstrate substantial equivalence (SE) in 
tobacco products and would provide information as to how the Agency 
will review and act on these submissions.
    Statement of Need: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C 
Act), as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control 
Act (Tobacco Control Act), requires premarket submissions for new 
tobacco products. Substantial equivalence reports are one type of 
premarket submission that manufacturers of new tobacco products may use 
to obtain marketing authorization for a new tobacco product. This 
regulation is necessary to provide information to manufacturers to aid 
them in preparing and submitting substantial equivalence reports.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 905(j) of the FD&C Act, as amended 
by the Tobacco Control Act, provides for the submission of substantial 
equivalence reports and authorizes FDA to prescribe the form and manner 
of these reports. Section 910 of the FD&C Act mandates the premarket 
review of new tobacco products, establishes definitions of substantial 
equivalence and characteristics, and requires health information as 
part of a submission under section 905(j) of the FD&C Act. Section 909 
establishes record and report requirements for tobacco products. 
Sections 701 and 704 of the FD&C Act authorize the promulgation of 
regulations to implement the FD&C Act and inspections.
    Alternatives: In addition to the benefits and costs of the proposed 
rule, FDA assessed the benefits and costs of several alternatives to 
the proposed rule: (1) Extending the effective date of the rule, (2) 
allowing for more deficiency letters and review cycles, and (3) 
allowing for only one review cycle.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs of the rule are compliance 
costs on affected entities, e.g., to read and understand the rule, to 
revise internal procedures, and fill out a form for substantial 
equivalence reports. The quantified benefits of the proposed rule are 
cost-savings resulting from shorter FDA review times and fewer staff to 
review substantial equivalence reports. The cost savings to the 
government is expected to be larger than the compliance cost for 
industry and the net result is an overall net positive benefit from 
this proposed rule. The qualitative benefits of the rule include 
additional clarity to industry about the requirements for the content 
and format of substantial equivalence reports, as well as the 
establishment of procedures for substantial equivalence report review 
and communication with applicants. These changes make the substantial 
equivalence marketing pathway clearer for both FDA and applicants.
    Risks: Premarket submissions for new tobacco products are required 
by the FD&C Act. But to prepare premarket submissions such as 
substantial equivalence reports intended to meet those requirements, 
manufacturers need more information about content and format 
requirements. This rule provides more information on content and format 
requirements and describes possible FDA actions on the substantial 
equivalence report.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Annette L. Marthaler, Regulatory Counsel, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Tobacco Products, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Document 
Control Center, Building 71, Room G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 
877 287-1373, Fax: 877 287-1426, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AH89


[[Page 57865]]



HHS--FDA

53.  Nutrient Content Claims, Definition of Term: Healthy

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 343, and 371
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 101.65 (revision).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would update the definition for the 
implied nutrient content claim ``healthy'' to be consistent with 
current nutrition science and federal dietary guidelines. The proposed 
rule would revise the requirements for when the claim ``healthy'' can 
be voluntarily used in the labeling of human food products so that the 
claim reflects current science and dietary guidelines and help 
consumers maintain healthy dietary practices.
    Statement of Need: FDA is proposing to redefine healthy to make it 
more consistent with current public health recommendations, including 
those captured in recent changes to the Nutrition Facts label. The 
existing definition for healthy is based on nutrition recommendations 
regarding intake of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and specific 
nutrients Americans were not getting enough of in the early 1990s. 
Nutrition recommendations have evolved since that time; recommended 
diets now focus on dietary patterns, which includes getting enough of 
certain food groups such as fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, and 
whole grains. Chronic diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, and 
stroke, are the leading causes of death and disability in the United 
States and diet is a contributing factor to these diseases. Claims on 
food packages such as healthy can provide quick signals to consumers 
about the healthfulness of a food or beverage, thereby making it easier 
for busy consumers to make healthy choices.
    FDA is proposing to update the existing nutrient content claim 
definition of Healthy based on the food groups recommended by the 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and also include nutrients to limit to 
ensure that foods bearing the claim can help consumers build more 
healthful diets to reduce their risk of diet-related chronic diseases.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is issuing this proposed rule under 
sections 201(n), 301(a), 403(a), 403(r), and 701(a) of the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(n), 331(a), 
343(a), 343(r), and 371(a)). These sections authorize the agency to 
adopt regulations that prohibit labeling that bears claims that 
characterize the level of a nutrient which is of a type required to be 
declared in nutrition labeling unless the claim is made in accordance 
with a regulatory definition established by FDA. Pursuant to this 
authority, FDA issued a regulation defining the healthy implied 
nutrient content claim, which is codified at 21 CFR 101.65. This 
proposed rule would update the existing definition to be consistent 
with current federal dietary guidance.
    Alternatives: Alternative 1: Codify the policy in the current 
enforcement discretion guidance.
    In 2016, FDA published Use of the Term `Healthy' in the Labeling of 
Human Food Products: Guidance for Industry. This guidance was intended 
to advise food manufacturers of FDA's intent to exercise enforcement 
discretion relative to foods that use the implied nutrient content 
claim healthy on their labels which: (1) Are not low in total fat, but 
have a fat profile makeup of predominantly mono and polyunsaturated 
fats; or (2) contain at least 10 percent of the Daily Value (DV) per 
reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) of potassium or vitamin D.
    One alternative is to codify the policy in the current enforcement 
discretion. Although guidance is non-binding, we assume that most 
packaged food manufacturers are aware of the guidance and, over the 
past 2 years, have already made any adjustments to their products or 
product packaging. Therefore, we assume that this alternative would 
have no costs to industry and no benefits to consumers.
    Alternative 2: Extend the compliance date by 1 year.
    Extending the anticipated proposed compliance date on the rule 
updating the definition by 1 year would reduce costs to industry as 
they would have more time to change products that may be affected by 
the rule or potentially coordinate label changes with already scheduled 
label changes. On the other hand, a longer compliance date runs the 
risk of confusing consumers that may not understand whether a packaged 
food product labeled healthy follows the old definition or the updated 
one.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Food products bearing the healthy 
claim currently make up a small percentage (5%) of total packaged 
foods. Relabeling and reformulating costs can range from about $2,000/
UPC to relabel, $800,000/formula to reformulate. We currently 
anticipate that total cost to industry will be about $15 million, 
annualized at 7% in perpetuity.
    Updating the definition of healthy to align with current dietary 
recommendations help consumers build more healthful diets to reduce 
their risk of diet-related chronic diseases. We currently anticipate 
the monetized benefits to be around $100 million, annualized at 7% in 
perpetuity.
    There are no cost savings.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Vincent De Jesus, Nutritionist, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, (HFS-830), Room 3D-031, 5100 Paint 
Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1774, Fax: 301 
436-1191, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AI13

HHS--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH (OASH)

Final Rule Stage

54.  Compliance With Statutory Program Integrity Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300-300a-6
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This action would finalize revisions to the Title X 
regulations to ensure compliance with, and enhance the implementation 
of, various statutory program integrity requirements, including the 
statutory requirement that none of the funds appropriated for Title X 
may be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
    Statement of Need: This action should enhance compliance with the 
statutory program integrity requirements applicable to, and purpose and 
goals of, the Title X program (especially those related to section 
1008), the appropriations provisos and riders addressing the Title X 
program, and other obligations and requirements established under other 
Federal law. The action should also enhance

[[Page 57866]]

programmatic transparency regarding the provision of Title X services 
(with respect to both the identity of the providers and the services 
being provided by such entities).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department has legal authority to issue 
and amend regulations to implement Title X of the Public Health Service 
(PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 300 300a-6), in order to establish the 
requirements applicable to projects for family planning services, 
pursuant to section 1006 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 
300a-4; section 1006 also provides priority for low-income families. 
Section 1001 of the PHS Act establishes certain parameters for 
voluntary Title X family planning projects/programs, including the 
offering of a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning 
methods and services (including natural family planning methods, 
infertility services, and services for adolescents) and the 
encouragement, to the extent practical, of family participation. 
Section 1008 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300a-6, establishes the 
prohibition on the use of the funds appropriated for Title X ``in 
programs where abortion is a method of family planning.''
    In addition, the annual Labor-HHS appropriations act imposes, on an 
annual basis, certain additional requirements with respect to the Title 
X program, including that all pregnancy counseling be nondirective; 
that Title X funds not be expended for any activity that in any way 
tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative 
proposal or candidate for public office; that Title X grant applicants 
certify to the Secretary that they encourage family participation in 
the decision of minors to seek family planning services and provide 
counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce them into 
engaging in sexual activities; and that Title X providers comply with 
State laws requiring notification or the reporting of child abuse, 
child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest. See, e.g., 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141, Div. H, 207-
208, Title II, 132 Stat. 348, 716-17.
    Finally, the action would ensure that the Title X program and Title 
X providers comply with laws that protect the conscience rights of 
individuals and entities who decline to perform, participate in, or 
refer for abortions, including the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-
7), the Coats-Snowe Amendment (42 U.S.C. 238n), and the Weldon 
Amendment, see, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 
115-141, Div. H, 507(d), 132 Stat. 348, 764 (2018).
    The Department has legal authority to issue and amend regulations 
to implement Title X of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 
300 300a-6), in order to establish the requirements applicable to 
projects for family planning services, pursuant to section 1006 of the 
Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300a-4; section 1006 also provides 
priority for low-income families. Section 1001 of the PHS Act 
establishes certain parameters for voluntary Title X family planning 
projects/programs, including the offering of a broad range of 
acceptable and effective family planning methods and services 
(including natural family planning methods, infertility services, and 
services for adolescents) and the encouragement, to the extent 
practical, of family participation. Section 1008 of the PHS Act, 42 
U.S.C. 300a-6, establishes the prohibition on the use of the funds 
appropriated for Title X ``in programs where abortion is a method of 
family planning.''
    In addition, the annual Labor-HHS appropriations act imposes, on an 
annual basis, certain additional requirements with respect to the Title 
X program, including that all pregnancy counseling be nondirective; 
that Title X funds not be expended for any activity that in any way 
tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative 
proposal or candidate for public office; that Title X grant applicants 
certify to the Secretary that they encourage family participation in 
the decision of minors to seek family planning services and provide 
counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce them into 
engaging in sexual activities; and that Title X providers comply with 
State laws requiring notification or the reporting of child abuse, 
child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest. See, e.g., 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141, Div. H, 207-
208, Title II, 132 Stat. 348, 716-17.
    Finally, the action would ensure that the Title X program and Title 
X providers comply with laws that protect the conscience rights of 
individuals and entities who decline to perform, participate in, or 
refer for abortions, including the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-
7), the Coats-Snowe Amendment (42 U.S.C. 238n), and the Weldon 
Amendment, see, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 
115-141, Div. H, 507(d), 132 Stat. 348, 764 (2018).
    Alternatives: The Department continues to consider alternative 
approaches that would ensure (1) sufficient compliance with the 
statutory program integrity requirements and purpose and goals of the 
Title X program, the appropriations provisos and riders addressing the 
Title X program, and other obligations and requirements established 
under other Federal law, and (2) transparency regarding the provision 
of services (with respect to both the identity of the providers and the 
services being provided by such entities).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes proposed will improve 
the integrity of Title X program, especially with respect to ensuring 
that projects and providers do not fund, support, or promote abortion 
as a method of family planning, and enhance compliance with statutory 
requirements and appropriations riders and provisos. In addition, it is 
expected that the changes will facilitate the ability of an expanded 
number of entities to participate in Title X, including by removal of 
abortion counseling and referral requirements that potentially violate 
Federal health care conscience protections; this should serve to expand 
and enhance patient service and care. The proposed rule estimated $13.6 
million in annualized costs at a 7% discount rate.
    Risks: None known.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/01/18  83 FR 25502
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/31/18  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Valerie Huber, Senior Policy Advisor, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Office of Assistant Secretary for Health, 
200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 690-7694, 
Fax: 202 401-8034, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0937-ZA00
    RIN: 0937-AA07

HHS--CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)

Proposed Rule Stage

55. Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities: Regulatory Provisions 
To Promote Program Efficiency, Transparency, and Burden Reduction (CMS-
3347-P) (Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.

[[Page 57867]]

    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: Secs. 1819 and 1919 of the Social Security Act; 
sec. 1819(d)(4)(B) and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act; sec. 
1819(b)(1)(A) and 1919(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 483; 42 CFR 488.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would reform the requirements that 
long-term care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs, that CMS has identified as unnecessary, obsolete, or 
excessively burdensome on facilities. This rule would increase the 
ability of healthcare professionals to devote resources to improving 
resident care by eliminating or reducing requirements that impede 
quality care or that divert resources away from providing high quality 
care.
    Statement of Need: CMS is committed to transforming the healthcare 
delivery system, and the Medicare program, by putting an additional 
focus on patient-centered care and working with providers, physicians, 
and patients to improve outcomes. We seek to reduce burdens for long-
term care facilities; healthcare professionals and residents; improve 
the quality of care; decrease costs; and, ensure that residents and 
their providers are making the best healthcare choices possible.
    We are therefore proposing revisions to the requirements that long-
term care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs that would increase the ability of healthcare 
professionals to devote resources to improving resident care by 
eliminating or reducing requirements that impede quality care or that 
divert resources away from providing high quality care.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary has statutory authority to 
issue these rules under the Nursing Home Reform Act, (part of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA '87), Pub. L. 100-203, 
101 Stat. 1330 (1987)), which added sections 1819 and 1919 to the Act; 
those provisions authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations that 
are ``adequate to protect the health, safety, welfare, and rights of 
residents and to promote the effective and efficient use of public 
moneys.'' (Sections 1819(f)(1) and 1919(f)(1) of the Act). In addition, 
the Act authorizes the Secretary to impose ``such other requirements 
relating to the health and safety [and well-being] of residents as [he] 
may find necessary.'' (Sections 1819(d)(4)(B), 1919(d)(4)(B) of the 
Act). Under Sections 1819(c)(1)(A)(xi) and 1919 (c)(1)(A)(xi) of the 
Act, the Secretary may also establish ``other right[s]'' for residents, 
in addition to those expressly set forth in the statutes and 
regulations, to ``protect and promote the rights of each resident.''
    Alternatives: For all of the proposed provisions, we considered not 
making these changes. Specifically, we considered the impact that any 
revisions would have on the health and safety of residents in long-term 
care facilities and if such revisions would realistically be burden 
reducing for facilities. Ultimately, we believe that the proposed 
revisions will be burden reducing and do not impede on the health and 
safety of residents.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule would create 
ongoing cost savings to long-term care facilities in many areas. In 
addition, various proposals would clarify existing policy and relieve 
some administrative burdens.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Ronisha Blackstone, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, MS: S3-
02-01, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
6882, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT36

HHS--CMS

56. CY 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (CMS-9926-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, title I
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 149; 45 CFR 153; 45 CFR 155; 45 CFR 156.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would set forth payment 
parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment programs; 
cost-sharing parameters; and user fees for issuers offering plans on 
Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State-based Exchanges using the 
Federal platform. It would also provide additional standards for 
several other Affordable Care Act programs.
    Statement of Need: This rule will propose standards related to the 
risk adjustment program for the 2020 benefit year, as well as certain 
modifications that will promote state flexibility and control over 
their insurance markets, reduce burden on stakeholders, and improve 
program integrity.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule addresses multiple sections of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111148) and the 
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111152), 
which amended and revised several provisions of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act.
    Alternatives: We considered slight variants of the proposed 
policies related to the risk adjustment program and standards related 
to the Exchanges.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We anticipate that the proposed 
changes will include some initial costs on stakeholders, but generate 
savings over the long term. As we move toward publication, estimates of 
the cost and benefits of these provisions will be included in the rule.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, issuers in the 
individual and small group market will not have important information 
for rate setting for the 2020 plan year, and changes applicable to 
qualified health plans will not be in place in time for the 2020 plan 
year.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Lindsey Murtagh, Senior Policy Advisor, Department 
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 
Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 301 492-4106, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT37

HHS--CMS

57. Exchange Program Integrity (CMS-9922-P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 155; 45 CFR 156.

[[Page 57868]]

    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule proposes improvements to Exchange program 
integrity, ensuring that eligible enrollees receive the correct 
advanced payments of the premium tax credit, and conducting effective 
and efficient oversight of State-Based Exchanges.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would propose changes to 
strengthen program integrity related to oversight of State Exchanges, 
and the operation of Exchanges.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule addresses multiple sections of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111148) and the 
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111152), 
which amended and revised several provisions of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act.
    Alternatives: The proposed policies are important for program 
integrity reasons. We considered variations on the proposed policies.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We do not anticipate the proposed 
rule to be a significant regulatory action, but do anticipate it would 
generate costs on stakeholders. We believe these costs will be offset 
by improvements in program integrity.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, important 
program integrity improvements will be delayed.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Agency Contact: Jeff Wu, Health Insurance Specialist, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 
Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, MS: 733H.02, 
7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 301 492-4305, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT53

HHS--CMS

58. Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the 
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for Contract Year 2020 
(CMS-4185-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 417; 42 CFR 422; 42 CFR 423.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would set forth programmatic and 
operational changes to the Medicare Advantage (MA) and prescription 
drug benefit programs for contract year 2020.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to make revisions to the 
Medicare Advantage (MA) and Prescription Drug Benefit programs to 
implement applicable provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 
and based on our continued experience in the administration of the 
programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule addresses multiple sections of 
the Social Security Act. It also implements sections 50323, 50311, and 
50354 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
    Alternatives: This rule implements provisions that require public 
notice and comment and are necessary for the upcoming contract year. We 
will continue to explore additional alternatives as we develop the 
rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates of the 
anticipated costs and benefits of this proposed rule indicate savings 
and burden reduction for the government, MA organizations, prescription 
drug plan sponsors, and providers. We expect some savings will also be 
passed onto beneficiaries in the form of increased benefit offerings 
and reduced premiums or cost sharing. Numerical estimates are pending 
and as we move toward publication, estimates of costs and benefits will 
be included in the proposed rule.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Michael Dibella, Director, Division of Policy, 
Analysis, and Planning, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-
22-18, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4480, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT59

HHS--CMS

59.  Modernizing and Clarifying the Physician Self-Referral 
Regulations (CMS-1720-P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395nn
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 411.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule proposes to address any undue regulatory impact 
and burden of the physician self-referral law.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to facilitate the 
successful transition from volume-based to value-based payment for 
health care services and promote care coordination among health care 
providers and suppliers who furnish care to Medicare beneficiaries and 
other patients. This rule is also necessary to bring needed clarity and 
flexibility for parties subject to the physician self-referral law's 
prohibitions on referrals and Medicare claims submission.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule interprets section 1877 of the 
Social Security Act.
    Alternatives: We will continue to explore alternatives as we 
develop the rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We believe that this rule could have 
a positive impact on health outcomes of beneficiaries and other 
American patients because providers, suppliers and physicians will be 
able to better coordinate patient care without running afoul of the 
physician self-referral law's referral and Medicare claims submission 
prohibitions. We also believe the proposed regulatory reforms may make 
compliance with the physician self-referral law more straightforward.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFI Notice With Comment Period......   06/25/18  83 FR 29524
RFI Comment Period End..............   08/28/18
NPRM................................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Lisa Wilson, Technical Advisor, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 
Center for Medicare, MS: C4-25-02, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 
MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-8852, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT64


[[Page 57869]]



HHS--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)

Proposed Rule Stage

60. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: Secs. 474(f), 479 and 1102 of the Social Security 
Act
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1355.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeks public 
suggestions in particular from State and Tribal title IV-E agencies and 
Indian tribes, Tribal organizations and consortiums, for streamlining 
the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) 
data elements and removing any undue burden related to reporting 
AFCARS.
    Statement of Need: The reporting requirements for the Adoption and 
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) have doubled in the 
past year. In an effort to ensure that an appropriate balance is 
achieved between reporting burden and administering high-quality 
programs that provide services to children and families. By engaging in 
this rulemaking process, the public and stakeholders will be afforded 
an opportunity to provide input on what data collections are most 
useful to the administration of child welfare programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 479 of the Social Security Act 
requires HHS regulate a national data collection system which provides 
comprehensive information on adopted and foster children and their 
parents.
    Alternatives: None. This rule implements statutory requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An estimate of costs to States to 
modify their existing data systems is not available at this time.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/15/18  83 FR 11449
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/13/18
NPRM................................   05/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Kathleen McHugh, ACYF/Children's Bureau, Department 
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 
330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 401-5789, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0970-AC72

BILLING CODE: 4150-03-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

Fall 2018 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was 
established in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-296. The DHS mission statement provides the following: 
``With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our 
homeland, and our values.''
    Fulfilling that mission requires the dedication of more than 
240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security 
to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility 
inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear--keeping 
America safe.
    Leading a unified national effort, DHS has five core missions: (1) 
Prevent terrorism and enhance security; (2) secure and manage our 
borders; (3) enforce and administer our immigration laws; (4) safeguard 
and secure cyberspace; and (5) ensure resilience to disasters. In 
addition, we must specifically focus on maturing and strengthening the 
homeland security enterprise itself.
    In achieving those goals, we are continually strengthening our 
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and 
Government agencies--at the Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, 
technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure, and we 
are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every 
security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further 
discussion of our mission, see the DHS website at https://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
    The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's Fall 
2018 regulatory plan and agenda support the Department's authorities. 
These regulations will improve the Department's ability to accomplish 
its mission. Also, the regulations we have identified in this year's 
regulatory plan continue to address legislative initiatives such as the 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 
Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007).
    DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized 
and unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office 
of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, 
including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior 
leadership reviews each significant regulatory project in order to 
ensure that the project fosters and supports the Department's mission.
    The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory 
initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil 
rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and 
partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to 
the American public.

Executive Order 13771 Requirements

    In fiscal year 2019, DHS plans to finalize the following actions:
     0 Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions;
     18 Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions (including 
information collections);
     4 Executive Order 13771-exempt regulations; and
     10 regulations for which we are unsure of their Executive 
Order 13771 designation. (Note: These are regulations that we 
designated as ``other'' in the newly-created Executive Order 13771 
designation data field in the Unified Agenda entries).
    We provide further information about those actions in the DHS 
Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda.
    DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive 
Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive Orders direct 
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory 
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory 
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, 
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of 
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing 
rules, and of promoting flexibility.
    Finally, the Department values public involvement in the 
development of its regulatory plan, agenda, and regulations, and is 
particularly concerned with the impact its regulations have on small 
businesses. DHS and its components continue to emphasize the use of 
plain language in our regulatory documents to promote a better 
understanding of regulations and to promote increased public 
participation in the Department's regulations.

[[Page 57870]]

    The Fall 2018 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from 
several DHS components, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (the Coast Guard), U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and 
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Below is a discussion 
of the regulations that comprise the DHS fall 2018 regulatory plan.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

    USCIS is the government agency that administers the nation's lawful 
immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by 
efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits 
while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our 
values. In the coming year, USCIS will promulgate several regulatory 
actions to support that mission.
    Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses from the Class of Aliens Eligible 
for Employment Authorization. USCIS will propose to rescind the final 
rule published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2015. The 2015 
final rule amended DHS regulations by extending eligibility for 
employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B 
nonimmigrants who are seeking employment-based lawful permanent 
resident status.
    H-1B Nonimmigrant Program and Petitioning Process Regulations. In 
order to improve U.S. worker protections as well as to address the 
requirements of Executive Order 13788, Buy American and Hire American, 
USCIS will propose to issue regulations with the focus of improving the 
H-1B nonimmigrant program and petitioning process. Such initiatives 
will include a proposed rule that would establish an electronic 
registration program for H-1B petitions subject to annual numerical 
limitations and would improve the H-1B numerical limitation allocation 
process (Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B 
Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to Numerical Limitations); and a 
proposed rule that would revise the definition of specialty occupation 
to increase focus on truly obtaining the best and brightest foreign 
nationals via the H-1B program and would revise the definition of 
employment and employer-employee relationship to help better protect 
U.S. workers and wages. (Strengthening the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa 
Classification Program).
    Heightened Screening and Vetting of Immigration Program 
Regulations. USCIS will propose regulations guiding the inadmissibility 
determination whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public 
charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
(Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds). Additionally, USCIS will 
propose to update its biometrics regulations to eliminate multiple 
references to specific biometric types, and to allow for the expansion 
of the types of biometrics required to establish and verify an 
identity. The goal of this proposal will be to establish consistent 
identity enrollment and verification policies and processes, and to 
provide clear proposals on how biometrics will be used in the 
immigration process. (USCIS Biometrics Collection for Collection for 
Consistent, Efficient and Effective Operations).
    Employment Creation Immigrant Regulations. USCIS will amend its 
regulations modernizing the employment-based, fifth preference (EB-5) 
immigrant investor category based on current economic realities and to 
reflect statutory changes made to the program. (EB-5 Immigrant Investor 
Program Modernization). USCIS will also propose to update its 
regulations for the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program to 
better reflect realities for regional centers and EB-5 immigrant 
investors, to increase predictability and transparency in the 
adjudication process, to improve operational efficiency, and to enhance 
program integrity. (EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program). 
Lastly, USCIS will publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to 
solicit public input on proposals that would increase monitoring and 
oversight of EB-5 projects, and encourage investment in rural areas. 
(EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Realignment.)
    Asylum Reforms. USCIS will propose regulations aimed at deterring 
the fraudulent filing of asylum applications for the purpose of 
obtaining Employment Authorization Documents. (Employment Authorization 
Documents for Asylum Applicants). USCIS will also propose to amend its 
regulations to streamline credible fear screening determinations in 
response to the Southwest Border crises. (Credible Fear Reform 
Regulation).
    Adjustment of Status Process Improvements. USCIS will propose to 
update regulatory provisions to improve the efficiency in the 
processing of adjustment of status applications, to reduce processing 
times, to improve data quality provided to partner agencies, to reduce 
the potential for visa retrogression, to promote efficient usage of 
available immigrant visas, and to discourage fraudulent and frivolous 
filings. (Updating Adjustment of Status Procedures for More Efficient 
Processing and Immigrant Visa Usage). USCIS will also propose updates 
to its regulations to improve the efficiency of USCIS processing of the 
Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions. (Improvements to the 
Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions).
    Electronic Processing of Immigration Benefit Requests. USCIS will 
propose to amend its regulations to mandate electronic submission for 
all immigration benefit requests, explain the requirements associated 
with electronic processing, and allow end-to-end digital processing. 
This proposal would enhance efficiency and efficacy in USCIS 
operations, and improve the experience for those applying for 
immigration benefits.

United States Coast Guard

    Coast Guard is a military, multi-mission, maritime service of the 
United States and the only military organization within DHS. It is the 
principal Federal agency responsible for the $4.5 trillion maritime 
transportation system, including maritime safety, security, and 
stewardship. The Coast Guard delivers daily value to the nation through 
multi-mission resources, authorities, and capabilities.
    Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an 
integrated approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast 
Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, 
delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships with 
maritime stakeholders. Consistent standards of universal application 
and enforcement, which encourage safe, efficient, and responsible 
maritime commerce, are vital to the success of the maritime industry. 
The Coast Guard's ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-
trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and 
important strengths in the maritime environment.
    America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and 
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, 
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are 
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised 
to meet the demands of the modern maritime environment. The Coast Guard 
creates value for the public through solid prevention and response 
efforts. Activities involving oversight and

[[Page 57871]]

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.
    In fiscal year 2019, the Coast Guard plans to finalize 0 regulatory 
actions and 11 deregulatory actions. The Coast Guard is highlighting 
the following Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions:
    Amendments to the Marine Radar Observer Refresher Training 
Regulations. The Coast Guard will propose removing obsolete portions of 
the radar observer endorsement requirements and harmonizing the 
endorsement with the merchant mariner credential. Active mariners with 
radar observer endorsements having one year of relevant sea service 
within the previous five years and having served in a position using 
radar for navigation and collision avoidance purposes on board a radar-
equipped vessel, or who have met certain instructor requirements, would 
be able to renew their radar observer endorsement without completing a 
radar course. This proposed rule would eliminate the requirement for 
mariners to carry a certificate of training if the radar observer 
endorsement is on the MMC, and would allow the endorsement and MMC to 
expire at the same time. Elimination of the requirement to take a radar 
refresher or re-certification course every five years would reduce 
burden on affected mariners without affecting safety. (Note: There is 
no associated Regulatory Plan entry for this rule because this rule is 
non-significant under Executive Order 12866. There is an entry, 
however, in the Unified Agenda.)
    TWIC Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date. The Coast Guard 
has proposed to partially delay the effective date of the final rule 
entitled ``Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) 
Reader Requirements,'' published in the Federal Register on August 23, 
2016. The rule would delay the requirements for facilities that handle 
bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from vessels, as well as 
facilities that receive vessels that carry CDC, but do not transfer it 
to the facility. The Coast Guard is considering this delay to allow 
time to re-evaluate the ``asset categorization'' methodology used to 
determine which facilities were considered high risk. Currently, the 
rule is scheduled to be implemented after the Department of Homeland 
Security submits the report to Congress on the effectiveness of the 
TWIC program, required by the Transportation Worker Identification 
Credential Security Card Program Improvements and Assessment Act (Pub. 
L. 114-278). This rule would delay the effective date for the affected 
facilities until August 23, 2021.
    Removal of Certain International Convention on Standards of 
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as 
Amended (STCW) Training Requirements. The Coast Guard will propose to 
remove three Coast Guard merchant mariner training requirements related 
to STCW officer and rating endorsements from its regulations in 46 CFR 
parts 11 and 12. The Coast Guard has determined these training 
requirements exceed current international certification and training 
standards of the STCW and cause a misalignment between the training of 
U.S. mariners and the mariners of other countries. The proposed rule 
would remove the following training requirements: Leadership and 
managerial skills training to qualify as master of vessels of less than 
500 gross tons limited to near-coastal waters; bridge resource 
management training to qualify as officer in charge of a navigational 
watch on vessels of less than 500 gross tons limited to near-coastal 
waters; and computer systems and maintenance training to qualify as 
electro-technical rating on vessels powered by main propulsion 
machinery of 750 kW/1,000 HP or more. Removal of these training 
requirements would reduce the burden on affected mariners without 
affecting safety.
    Person in Charge of Fuel Transfers. The Coast Guard will propose an 
alternative to the existing regulatory requirement that a person in 
charge (PIC) of a fuel transfer on an inspected vessel hold a Merchant 
Mariner Credential with either an officer endorsement or Tankerman-PIC 
endorsement. The proposed rule would add the option of designating the 
PIC using a letter of designation (LOD), which is currently an option 
for uninspected vessels but not inspected vessels. The LOD designates 
the holder as a PIC of the transfer of fuel oil and states that the 
holder has received sufficient formal instruction from the operator or 
agent of the vessel to ensure his or her ability to safely and 
adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of the PIC. Our 
decades of experience with LODs on uninspected vessels indicates we can 
safely provide this option to persons on inspected vessels. Allowing 
the PIC to hold an LOD instead of an Merchant Mariner Credential would 
relieve certain personnel from the burden of obtaining and renewing an 
Merchant Mariner Credential every 5 years, and would create flexibility 
as to who may serve as a PIC of fuel transfers on inspected vessels. 
This option would be available only for transfers of fuel; the PIC 
requirements for vessels transferring cargo would remain unchanged. 
(Note: There is no associated Regulatory Plan entry for this rule 
because this rule is non-significant under Executive Order 12866. There 
is an entry, however, in the Unified Agenda.)

United States Customs and Border Protection

    CBP is the Federal agency principally responsible for the security 
of our Nation's borders, both at and between the ports of entry into 
the United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and 
enforcement mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and 
travel. The primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission, 
that is, to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the 
United States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves 
improving security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means 
extending our zone of security beyond our physical borders.
    CBP is also responsible for administering laws concerning the 
importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws 
concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes 
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import 
duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United 
States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of 
persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws 
concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending 
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting 
our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; 
servicing all people, vehicles, and cargo entering the United States; 
maintaining export controls; and protecting U.S. businesses from theft 
of their intellectual property.
    In carrying out its mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the 
processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without 
compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland 
security, CBP intends to issue several regulations during the next 
fiscal

[[Page 57872]]

year that are intended to improve security at our borders and ports of 
entry. During the upcoming year, CBP will also be working on various 
projects to streamline CBP processing, reduce duplicative processes, 
reduce various burdens on the public, and automate various paper forms. 
Below are descriptions of CBP's planned regulatory and deregulatory 
actions for fiscal year 2019.
    Collection of Biometric Data from Aliens Upon Entry to and 
Departure from the United States. DHS is required by statute to develop 
and implement an integrated, automated entry and exit data system to 
match records, including biographic data and biometric identifiers, of 
aliens entering and departing the United States. In addition, Executive 
Order 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into 
the United States, states that DHS is to expedite the completion and 
implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system. Although the 
current regulations provide that DHS may require certain aliens to 
provide biometrics when entering and departing the United States, they 
only authorize DHS to collect biometrics from certain aliens upon 
departure under pilot programs at land ports and at up to 15 airports 
and seaports. In order to provide the legal framework for DHS to begin 
a seamless biometric entry-exit system, DHS intends to issue an interim 
final rule to amend the regulations to remove the references to pilot 
programs and the port limitation. In addition, to enable CBP to make 
the process for verifying the identity of alien's more efficient, 
accurate, and secure by using facial recognition technology, this rule 
would also provide that alien travelers may be required to provide 
photographs upon entry and/or departure.
    Implementation of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 
(ESTA) at U.S. Land Borders--Automation of CBP Form I-94W. CBP intends 
to amend DHS regulations to implement the ESTA requirements under 
section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007, for aliens who intend to enter the United States under the 
Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at land ports of entry. Currently, aliens 
from VWP countries must provide certain biographic information to U.S. 
CBP officers at land ports of entry on a paper I-94W Nonimmigrant Visa 
Waiver Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94W). Under this rule, these 
VWP travelers would instead provide this information to CBP 
electronically through ESTA prior to application for admission to the 
United States.
    Technical Corrections to Reflect the Consolidation of Vessel Repair 
Unit Locations. CBP intends to issue a final rule to update provisions 
relating to the declaration, entry and dutiable status of repair 
expenditures made abroad for certain vessels to reflect the port of New 
Orleans, Louisiana as the only Vessel Repair Unit (VRU) location. The 
amendment will improve the efficiency of vessel repair entry 
processing, ensure the proper assessment and collection of duties, and 
make the regulations more transparent. This rule is a deregulatory 
action under Executive Order 13771. (Note: There is no associated 
Regulatory Plan entry for this rule because this rule is non-
significant under Executive Order 12866. There is an entry, however, in 
the Unified Agenda.)
    Modernization of the Customs Brokers Regulations. CBP intends to 
issue a proposed rule to amend the requirements for customs brokers. 
Specifically, CBP will propose to expand the scope of the national 
permit authority to allow national permit holders to conduct any type 
of customs business throughout the customs territory of the United 
States. To accomplish this, CBP will propose to eliminate broker 
districts and district permits, which also eliminates the need for 
district permit waivers and for brokers to maintain district offices. 
Additionally, CBP will propose to update the responsible supervision 
and control oversight framework to better reflect the modern business 
environment. This rule is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 
13771. (Note: There is no associated Regulatory Plan entry for this 
rule because this rule is non-significant under Executive Order 12866. 
There is an entry, however, in the Unified Agenda.)
    Automation of CBP Form I-418 for Vessels. CBP intends to issue a 
rule amending the regulations regarding the submission of Form I-418, 
Passenger List--Crew List. Currently, the master or agent of every 
commercial vessel arriving in the United States, with limited 
exceptions, must submit a paper Form I-418, along with certain 
information regarding longshore work, to CBP at the port where 
immigration inspection is performed. Most commercial vessel operators 
are also required to submit a paper Form I-418 to CBP at the final U.S. 
port prior to departing for a foreign port. Under this rule, most 
vessel operators would be required to electronically submit the data 
elements on Form I-418 to CBP through the National Vessel Movement 
Center in lieu of submitting a paper form. This rule would eliminate 
the need to file the paper Form I-418 in most cases. This rule is a 
deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771. (Note: There is no 
associated Regulatory Plan entry for this rule, because this rule is 
not significant under Executive Order 12866. There is an entry, 
however, in the Unified Agenda.)
    In addition to the regulations that CBP issues to promote DHS's 
mission, CBP also issues regulations related to the mission of the 
Department of the Treasury. Under section 403(1) of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service, including 
functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, 
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the 
initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade 
functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural 
inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. 
The Department of the Treasury retained certain regulatory authority of 
the U.S. Customs Service relating to customs revenue function. In 
addition to its plans to continue issuing regulations to enhance border 
security, in the coming year, CBP expects to continue to issue 
regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and 
implement trade benefit programs. For a discussion of CBP regulations 
regarding the customs revenue function, see the regulatory plan of the 
Department of the Treasury.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

    FEMA's mission is helping people before, during, and after 
disasters.
    FEMA is working on a deregulatory action titled Update to FEMA's 
Regulations on Rulemaking Procedures. That rule would revise FEMA 
regulations pertaining to rulemaking by removing sections that are 
outdated or do not affect the public and update provisions that affect 
the public's participation in the rulemaking process.
    FEMA is also working on a regulatory action titled Factors 
Considered When Evaluating a Governor's Request for Individual 
Assistance for a Major Disaster. This regulation would address the 
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013's requirement that FEMA review, 
update, and revise through rulemaking the individual assistance factors 
FEMA uses to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster. 
FEMA published a proposed rule on November 12, 2015, and now plans to 
issue a final rule.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

    The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have

[[Page 57873]]

any significant regulations planned for fiscal year 2019.

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of DHS and one of 
the three Department components charged with the criminal and civil 
enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws. Its primary mission is to 
protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of our 
borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of Federal law 
governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. During 
fiscal year 2019, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on three priority 
regulations: (1) A final rule to address the detention, processing, and 
release of alien children; (2) a final rule to increase the fees paid 
to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to recover costs for 
services; and (3) a proposed rule to replace ``duration of status'' 
with a maximum period of stay for certain classes of nonimmigrants.
    Below are ICE's significant regulatory actions for the coming 
fiscal year:
    Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and 
Unaccompanied Alien Children. ICE, in concert with CBP and the 
Department of Health and Human Services, will finalize a rule related 
to the detention, processing, and release of alien children. In 1985, a 
class-action suit challenged the policies of the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) relating to the detention, processing, and 
release of alien children; the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme 
Court. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged INS 
regulations on their face and remanded the case for further proceedings 
consistent with its opinion. In January 1997, the parties reached a 
comprehensive settlement agreement, referred to as the Flores 
Settlement Agreement (FSA). The FSA was to terminate five years after 
the date of final court approval; however, the termination provisions 
were modified in 2001, such that the FSA does not terminate until 
forty-five days after publication of regulations implementing the 
agreement. Since 1997, intervening statutory changes, including passage 
of the Homeland Security Act and the William Wilberforce Trafficking 
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), have 
significantly changed the applicability of certain provisions of the 
FSA. The proposed rule will codify the relevant and substantive terms 
of the FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of the 
FSA and the litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, 
DHS will create a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family 
units while satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule will also 
implement related provisions of the TVPRA.
    Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor 
Program. ICE will finalize a rule to adjust the fees that the Student 
and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) charges individuals and 
organizations. In 2016, SEVP conducted a comprehensive fee study and 
determined that current fees do not recover the full costs of the 
services provided. ICE has determined that adjusting fees is necessary 
to fully recover the increased costs of SEVP operations, program 
requirements, and to provide the necessary funding to sustain 
initiatives critical to supporting national security. The rule will 
adjust DHS's fees for individuals and organizations. The SEVP fee 
schedule was last adjusted in a rule published on September 26, 2008.
    Establishing a Maximum Period of Authorized Stay for F-1 and Other 
Nonimmigrants. ICE will publish a proposed rule that modifies the 
period of authorized stay for certain categories of nonimmigrants 
traveling to the United States. The rule would change the authorized 
stay from ``duration of status'' and replace it with a maximum period 
of authorized stay, and options for extensions, for each applicable 
visa category. This change will help eliminate confusion over the 
length of authorized period of stay for nonimmigrants to lawfully 
remain in the United States and will assist efforts to reduce overstay 
rates.

National Protection and Programs Directorate

    The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) vision is 
a safe, secure, and resilient infrastructure where the American way of 
life can thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to protect and enhance 
the resilience of the Nation's physical and cyber infrastructure. 
Although NPPD does not plan to finalize any significant regulations 
within the next fiscal year, NPPD will undertake reviews of its 
existing regulations in accordance with Executive Order 13771. NPPD is 
also working on several future rulemaking projects, as reflected in the 
Unified Agenda.

Transportation Security Administration

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the 
Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for 
people and commerce. TSA applies an intelligence-driven, risk-based 
approach to all aspects of TSA's mission. This approach results in 
layers of security to mitigate risks effectively and efficiently. TSA 
uses established processes, working with stakeholders, to review 
programs, requirements, and procedures for appropriate modifications 
based upon changes in the environment, whether those changes result 
from an evolving threat or enhancements available through new 
technologies.
    For the coming fiscal year, TSA is prioritizing deregulatory 
actions and regulatory actions that are required to meet statutory 
mandates and that are necessary for national security. Below are 
planned TSA actions for fiscal year (FY) 2019.
    Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees. TSA will 
finalize a rule requiring higher-risk public transportation agencies 
(including rail mass transit and bus systems), railroad carriers 
(freight and passenger), and over-the-road bus owner/operators to 
conduct security training for frontline employees. This regulation will 
implement mandates of the Implementing Regulations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007, (9/11 Act), which addressed recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission for enhancing the nation's security based upon 
vulnerabilities identified in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. In 
compliance with the definition of frontline employees in pertinent 
provisions of the 9/11 Act, the rule will include identification of 
which employees are required to receive security training and the 
content of that training. The final rule will also propose definitions 
for transportation security-sensitive materials, as required by section 
1501 of the 9/11 Act.
    Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees. TSA will 
propose a rule requiring security threat assessments for security 
coordinators and other frontline employees of certain public 
transportation agencies (including rail mass transit and bus systems), 
railroads (freight and passenger), and over-the-road bus owner/
operators. The NPRM will also propose provisions to implement TSA's 
statutory requirement to recover its cost of vetting through user fees. 
While many stakeholders conduct background checks on their employees, 
their actions are limited based upon the data they can access. Through 
this rule, TSA will be able to conduct a more thorough check against 
terrorist watch-lists of individuals in security-sensitive positions.
    Amending Vetting Requirements for Employees with Access to a 
Security

[[Page 57874]]

Identification Display Area. The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security 
Act of 2016 mandates that TSA consider modifications to the list of 
disqualifying criminal offenses and criteria, develop a waiver process 
for approving the issuance of credentials for unescorted access, and 
propose an extension of the look back period for disqualifying crimes. 
Based on these requirements, and current intelligence pertaining to the 
``insider threat,'' TSA will propose revisions that enhance the 
eligibility requirements and disqualifying criminal offenses for 
individuals seeking or having unescorted access to any Security 
Identification Display Area of an airport.
    Protection of Sensitive Security Information. Through a joint 
rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (DOT), TSA will 
streamline existing requirements to protect sensitive security 
information. This action finalizes an Interim Final Rule for a 
statutorily-required regulation related to national security. The rule 
amends TSA's and DOT's regulations to provide three options for the 
sensitive security information distribution statement, one 
significantly abbreviated, to address comments on the IFR that the 
current marking requirements are unduly burdensome. TSA is considering 
further deregulatory actions, including aligning the requirement for 
the handling of Federal Flight Deck Officer names consistent with the 
handling of Federal Air Marshal names (two names listed together would 
be sensitive security information, not a single Federal Flight Deck 
Officer name).
    Flight Training for Aliens and Other Designated Individuals; 
Security Awareness Training for Flight School Employees. This rule will 
streamline regulations and reduce burden for the alien flight student 
program. This action finalizes an IFR for rule that implements a 
statutory requirement, as well as addresses comments received in 
response to a reopening of the comment period on the IFR. The alien 
flight student program requires security threat assessments for aliens 
seeking flight training in the United States and imposes additional 
security measures on the flight schools training these individuals. In 
response to recommendations from industry through the Aviation Security 
Advisory Committee, TSA is considering revising these requirements to 
reduce costs and industry burden. For example, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for the program are estimated to be overly 
burdensome due to the requirement for paper records. TSA is considering 
an electronic recordkeeping platform where all flight providers would 
upload required student information to a TSA-managed website. Also at 
industry's request, TSA is considering changing the interval for 
security threat assessments of alien flight students, eliminating the 
requirement for a new security threat assessment for each ``training 
event.'' A related change to the current information collection request 
pertaining to the alien flight student program will be part of this 
deregulatory action.

United States Secret Service

    The United States Secret Service does not have any significant 
regulations planned for fiscal year 2019.

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2019

    A more detailed description of the priority regulations that 
comprise the DHS Fall 2018 regulatory plan follows.

DHS--U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS)

Prerule Stage

61.  EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Realignment

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5); 8 U.S.C. 1186(a); 8 U.S.C. 
1153
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.6; 8 CFR 216.6.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to 
publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public 
input on proposals that would increase monitoring and oversight of the 
EB-5 program as well as encourage investment in rural areas. DHS would 
solicit feedback on proposals associated with redefining components of 
the job creation requirement, and defining conditions for regional 
center designations and operations.
    Statement of Need: DHS will solicit public input on proposals that 
would increase monitoring and oversight, encourage investment in rural 
areas, redefine components of the job creation requirement, and define 
conditions for regional center designations and operations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is based on the authority of DHS 
to designate regional centers and to permit investors to establish 
reasonable methodologies to demonstrate job creation under 8 U.S.C. 
1153 note (Public Law 102-395, sec. 610 (as amended)), for admission to 
the United States as lawful permanent residents on a conditional basis. 
In addition, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5) provides eligibility to aliens who 
invest in new commercial enterprises which will create jobs and 8 
U.S.C. 1186a provides requirements for removal of conditions on 
permanent resident status, the administration and interpretation of 
which is left to DHS.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the 
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers 
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 272-8377, 
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC26

DHS--USCIS

Proposed Rule Stage

62. Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182 and 1183; . . 
.
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212 to 214; 8 CFR 248.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose 
regulatory provisions guiding the inadmissibility determination on 
whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge under 
section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). DHS proposes to add a regulatory provision, which 
would define the term public charge and would outline DHS's public 
charge considerations.
    Statement of Need: To ensure that foreign nationals coming to the 
United

[[Page 57875]]

States or adjusting status to permanent residence, either temporarily 
or permanently, have adequate means of support while in the United 
States, and that foreign nationals do not become dependent on public 
benefits for support.
    Summary of Legal Basis: INA 212(a)(4).
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the 
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions. In 
general, DHS anticipates that by clarifying the meaning of public 
charge some stakeholders would incur costs in terms of potentially not 
being able to adjust status. Other anticipated costs to individuals 
requesting immigration benefits are associated with the opportunity 
cost of time to complete and file required forms and documentation, 
possible costs associated with any additional background checks, and 
unintended and indirect costs associated with the loss of public 
assistance due to disenrollment or foregone enrollment in public 
benefits programs for those who are otherwise eligible. DHS anticipates 
there will be benefits associated with ensuring that foreign nationals 
coming to the United States have adequate means of support and do not 
become dependent on public assistance.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/26/99  64 FR 28676
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/26/99
NPRM................................   10/10/18  83 FR 51114
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/10/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: CIS No. 2499-10, Transferred from RIN 1115-
AF45.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, Chief, Residence and Naturalization 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-8377, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AA22

DHS--USCIS

63. Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B 
Petitions on Behalf of Cap Subject Aliens

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security proposes to amend its 
regulations governing petitions filed on behalf of H-1B beneficiaries 
who may be counted under section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) (``H-1B regular cap'') or under section 
214(g)(5)(C) of the INA (``H-1B master's cap''). This rule proposes to 
establish an electronic registration program for petitions subject to 
numerical limitations for the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. This 
action is being considered because the demand for H-1B specialty 
occupation workers by U.S. employers has often exceeded the numerical 
limitation. This rule is intended to allow U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) to more efficiently manage the intake and 
selection process for these H-1B petitions. The Department published a 
proposed rule on this topic in 2011. The Department intends to publish 
an additional proposed rule in 2018. The proposal may include a 
modified selection process, as outlined in section 5(b) of Executive 
Order 13788, Buy American and Hire American.
    Statement of Need: Consistent with the Buy American and Hire 
American, E.O. 13788's direction to suggest reforms to help ensure that 
H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition 
beneficiaries, this regulation would help to streamline the process for 
administering the H-1B cap and increase the probability of the total 
number of petitions selected under the cap filed for H-1B beneficiaries 
who possess a master's or higher degree from a U.S. institution of 
higher education each fiscal year.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary of Homeland Security's 
authority for these proposed regulatory amendments is found in various 
sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et 
seq. General authority for issuing the proposed rule is found in 
section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the 
Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality 
laws, as well as section 102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, which vests all 
of the functions of DHS in the Secretary and authorizes the Secretary 
to issue regulations. Further authority for the regulatory amendments 
in the proposed rule is found in section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
1184(a)(1), which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe by regulation 
the terms and conditions of the admission of nonimmigrants; section 
214(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(c), which authorizes the Secretary to 
prescribe how an importing employer may petition for an H-1B 
nonimmigrant worker, and the information that an importing employer 
must provide in the petition; and section 214(g) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
1184(g), which provides the H-1B numerical limitations and various 
exceptions to those limitations.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would aim to 
result in better resource management and predictability for both USCIS 
and petitioning H-1B employers. An electronic registration process 
could benefit most of the regulated public by potentially reducing the 
overall cost and time involved in petitioning for H-1B nonimmigrant 
workers. However, some additional costs may be incurred from the 
electronic registration process to some petitioners.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/03/11  76 FR 11686
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/02/11
NPRM................................   10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: USCIS 2443-08. Includes Retrospective 
Review under E.O. 13563.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers 
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 272-8377, 
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AB71


[[Page 57876]]



DHS--USCIS

64. EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5); Pub. L. 102-395, secs. 610 
and 601(a); Pub. L. 107-273, sec. 11037; Pub. L. 101-649, sec. 121(a); 
Pub. L. 105-119, sec. 116; Pub. L. 106-396, sec. 402; Pub. L. 108-156, 
sec. 4; Pub. L. 112-176, sec. 1; Pub. L. 114-113, sec. 575; Pub. L. 
114-53, sec. 131; Pub. L. 107-273
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 216.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering 
making regulatory changes to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional 
Center Program. DHS issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM) to seek comment from all interested stakeholders on several 
topics, including: (1) The process for initially designating entities 
as regional centers, (2) a potential requirement for regional centers 
to utilize an exemplar filing process, (3) continued participation 
requirements for maintaining regional center designation, and (4) the 
process for terminating regional center designation. While DHS has 
gathered some information related to these topics, the ANPRM sought 
additional information that can help the Department make operational 
and security updates to the Regional Center Program while minimizing 
the impact of such changes on regional center operations and EB-5 
investors.
    Statement of Need: Based on decades of experience operating the 
program, DHS has determined that program changes are needed to better 
reflect business realities for regional centers and EB-5 immigrant 
investors, to increase predictability and transparency in the 
adjudication process for stakeholders, to improve operational 
efficiency for the agency, and to enhance program integrity.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to administer 
and enforce the immigration and nationality laws including establishing 
regulations deemed necessary to carry out his authority, and section 
102 of the Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. 112, authorizes the 
Secretary to issue regulations. 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), INA section 103(a). 
INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), also provides the Secretary 
with authority to make visas available to immigrants seeking to engage 
in a new commercial enterprise in which the immigrant has invested and 
which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time 
employment for not fewer than 10 U.S. workers. Further, section 610 of 
Public Law 102-395 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) created the Immigrant Investor 
Pilot Program and authorized the Secretary to set aside visas for 
individuals who invest in regional centers created for the purpose of 
concentrating pooled investment in defined economic zones, and was last 
amended by Public Law 107-296.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still in the process of 
reviewing potential changes it would propose to the regional center 
process. DHS may propose to implement an exemplar filing requirement 
for all designated regional centers that would require regional centers 
to file exemplar project requests. An exemplar filing requirement could 
cause some projects to not go forward, but DHS is still in the process 
of assessing the impacts on the number of projects that may be 
affected. DHS anticipates that any proposed changes to the regional 
center program would increase overall program efficiency, transparency, 
and predictability for both USCIS and EB-5 stakeholders.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   01/11/17  82 FR 3211
ANPRM Comment Period End............   04/11/17
NPRM................................   03/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers 
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 272-8377, 
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC11

DHS--USCIS

65. Strengthening the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification Program

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1184
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose to 
revise the definition of specialty occupation to increase focus on 
obtaining the best and the brightest foreign nationals via the H-1B 
program, and revise the definition of employment and employer-employee 
relationship to better protect U.S. workers and wages. In addition, DHS 
will propose additional requirements designed to ensure employers pay 
appropriate wages to H-1B visa holders.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of these changes is to ensure that 
H-1B visas are awarded only to individuals who will be working in a job 
which meets the statutory definition of specialty occupation. In 
addition, these changes are intended to ensure that the H-1B program 
supplements the U.S. workforce and strengthens U.S. worker protections.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 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. This rule will significantly enhance the ability of 
USCIS to effectively manage and monitor the H-1B program.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the cost 
and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 57877]]

    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers 
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 272-8377, 
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC13

DHS--USCIS

66. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Biometrics Collection for 
Consistent, Efficient, and Effective Operations

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103(a); 8. U.S.C. 1444 and 1446; 8 
U.S.C. 1365a and 1365b; 8 U.S.C. 1304(a); Pub. L. 107-56; Pub. L. 107-
173; Pub. L. 109-248, sec. 402(a) and 402(b)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9); 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C); 8 CFR 
103.16; 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi); 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3); 8 CFR 204.5(p)(4); 8 
CFR 208.10; 8 CFR 210.2(c)(2)(i); 8 CFR 210.5(b)(2); 8 CFR 214.1(f); 8 
CFR 214.11(a); 8 CFR 214.11(m)(2); 8 CFR 236.5; 8 CFR 240.68(b); 8 CFR 
245.21(b); 8 CFR 245a.2(d); 8 CFR 245a.4(b)(4); 8 CFR 214.2(w)(15); 8 
CFR 215.8; 8 CFR 244.17; 8 CFR 245a.12(d); 8 CFR 264.1(g); 8 CFR 
264.2(d); 8 CFR 333.1(a) to (b); 8 CFR 316.4(a).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose to 
update its regulations to eliminate multiple references to specific 
biometric types, and to allow for the expansion of the types of 
biometrics required to establish and verify an identity. DHS will also 
propose to modify age restrictions where they exist to detect, deter, 
or prevent human trafficking of children; establish consistent identity 
enrollment and verification policies and processes; and align U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) biometric collection with 
other immigration operations. The DHS proposal will provide a 
definition to the public on the term biometric and how biometrics will 
be used in the immigration process.
    Statement of Need: As DHS seeks to better secure the immigration 
process by confirming the identity of individuals encountered, the use 
of biometrics needs to be expanded to account for different methods of 
biometric collection beyond fingerprints and to remove age 
restrictions.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the exact 
cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions. In general, DHS 
anticipates that stakeholders will incur costs due to the increased 
collection of biometrics and the expansion of the types of biometrics 
required to establish and verify an identity. The anticipated costs to 
individuals submitting biometrics are associated with biometric fees 
and travel costs, and the opportunity cost of time in completing and 
filing required forms and the time associated with travel. DHS 
anticipates benefits of those individuals seeking immigration benefits 
and to the government.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Lee Bowes, Deputy Associate Director, Immigration 
Records and Identity Services Directorate, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-8377, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC14

DHS--USCIS

67. Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses From the Class of Aliens Eligible 
for Employment Authorization

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a); 8 U.S.C. 
1184(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1324a(H)(3)(B)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On February 25, 2015, DHS published a final rule 
extending eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4 
dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who are seeking employment-
based lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. DHS is publishing this 
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend that 2015 final rule. DHS is 
proposing to remove from its regulations certain H-4 spouses of H-1B 
nonimmigrants as a class of aliens eligible for employment 
authorization.
    Statement of Need: DHS is reviewing the 2015 final rule in light of 
issuance of Executive Order 13788, Buy American and Hire American.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) has the authority to amend this regulation under section 
102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 
2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorize the Secretary 
to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws. In 
addition, section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), provides 
the Secretary with authority to prescribe the time and conditions of 
nonimmigrants' admissions to the United States.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS anticipates that there would be 
two primary impacts that DHS can estimate and quantify: The cost-
savings accruing to forgone future filings by certain H-4 dependent 
spouses, and labor turnover costs that employers of H-4 workers could 
incur when their employees' EADs are terminated. Some U.S. workers 
would benefit from this proposed rule by having a better chance at 
obtaining jobs that some of the population of the H-4 workers currently 
hold, as the proposed rule would no longer allow H-4 workers to enter 
the labor market early.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers 
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529-2200,

[[Page 57878]]

Phone: 202 272-8377, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB92
    RIN: 1615-AC15

DHS--USCIS

68. Electronic Processing of Immigration Benefit Requests

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 44 U.S.C. 3504
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 104; 8 CFR 204.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose 
to: (1) Mandate electronic submission for all immigration benefit 
requests and explain the requirements associated with electronic 
processing; and (2) make changes to existing regulations to allow end-
to-end digital processing.
    Statement of Need: To address the inefficiency of relying on paper, 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is fully transitioning to a 
digital environment for processing immigration benefit requests. Agency 
experience demonstrates that the electronic processing of benefit 
requests is more efficient and effective than the traditional paper 
processes, during the immediate request, throughout the immigration 
life cycle, and beyond. eProcessing will largely eliminate the enormous 
cost of paper intake, shipping and storage, strengthen information 
security, and reduce redundancy and the potential for error in 
adjudication processes. For applicants, electronic processing will 
improve the experience of applying for immigration benefits at each 
stage of the process.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Authority for this proposed regulatory 
amendment can be found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (INA) section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103, which give the 
Secretary the authority to administer and enforce the immigration and 
nationality laws, as well as the Government Paperwork Elimination Act 
(GPEA), Public Law 105-277, tit. XVII, section 1703, 112 Stat. 2681, 
2681-749, 44 U.S.C. 3504, which provides that, when practicable, 
federal agencies use electronic forms, electronic filing, and 
electronic submissions to conduct agency business with the public.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the 
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions. In 
general, DHS anticipates that by mandating electronic submission for 
all immigration benefit requests and making changes to existing 
regulations to allow end-to-end digital processing, stakeholders will 
incur some costs associated with transitioning current practices to an 
electronic process. DHS anticipates there will be benefits and cost 
savings associated with mandating electronic submission for all 
immigration benefit requests and end-to-end digital processing.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Michael Mayhew, Chief of Staff, Immigration Records 
and Identity Services Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-8377, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC20

DHS--USCIS

69.  Updating Adjustment of Status Procedures for More 
Efficient Processing and Immigrant Visa Usage

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153 to 1155; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 
1324a
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.5; 8 CFR 245.2; 8 CFR 245.18; 8 CFR 245.1; 
8 CFR 274a.12; 8 CFR 205.1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose 
regulatory provisions designed to: Improve the efficiency in the 
processing of Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status (Form I-485), reduce processing times, improve the quality of 
inventory data provided to partner agencies, reduce the potential for 
visa retrogression, promote efficient usage of available immigrant 
visas, and discourage fraudulent or frivolous filings. DHS proposes to 
eliminate the concurrent filing of visa petitions and Form I-485 for 
all applicants seeking an immigrant visa in a preference category, and 
proposes to make further changes to the appropriate dates when 
applicants can file Form I-485 and for ancillary benefits.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of these changes is to reduce Form 
I-485 processing times, discourage frivolous filings, ensure that 
ancillary benefits are connected to the potential for visa allocation, 
provide steady Form I-485 receipts throughout the fiscal year, and 
improve the quality of USCIS Form I-485 inventory data. Reduced 
processing times, steady receipts, and better data quality will ensure 
more efficient usage of the available immigrant visas and reduce visa 
retrogression.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the 
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, Chief, Residence and Naturalization 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-8377, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC22

DHS--USCIS

70.  Improvements to the Medical Certification for Disability 
Exceptions Processing

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1423; 8 U.S.C. 1443; 8 
U.S.C. 1448
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 312.3.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose

[[Page 57879]]

updates to regulatory provisions designed to improve the efficiency of 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service processing of Medical 
Certification for Disability Exceptions (Form N-648) by improving 
customer service and responding to concerns of possible fraud and 
abuse.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of these changes is to ensure 
operational efficiency and integrity by addressing issues of potential 
fraud and other irregularities in the N-648 process.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is currently considering the 
specific cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, Chief, Residence and Naturalization 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-8377, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC23

DHS--USCIS

71.  Credible Fear Reform

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2); 8 U.S.C. 1224(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 
U.S.C. 1224(b)(1)(B)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208.2(b); 8 CFR 208.2(c); 8 CFR 208.30(e)(2); 8 
CFR 208.30(e)(4); 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5); 8 CFR 208.30(f); 8 CFR 208.30(g); 
8 CFR 235.6(a).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will propose to 
amend regulatory provisions to streamline credible fear screening 
determinations, in response to the Southwest Border crisis. DHS plans 
to establish various measures, such as applying the mandatory bars to 
asylum eligibility to certain credible fear screening determinations, 
and removing provisions related to novel or unique issues that merit 
consideration in a full hearing before an immigration judge.
    Statement of Need: The reforms that will be proposed by DHS aim to 
respond to the national emergency caused by the influx of inadmissible 
aliens along the Southwest Border and reduce the threat to U.S. 
national security and public safety. Additionally, these provisions 
will make the adjudication of credible fear claims more efficient while 
upholding U.S. treaty obligations and law that prevent the return of 
aliens to a country in which they would be persecuted or tortured. In 
combination with other policy, operational, and legal reforms, the 
proposed changes will reduce the strain on DHS resources by deterring 
illegal migration to the United States, thereby addressing the 
Southwest Border crisis and protecting U.S. national security and 
public safety.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 
section 235(b), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), defines the term credible fear of 
persecution as a significant possibility, taking into the account the 
credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the 
alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that 
the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 8 U.S.C. 
1158. Currently, U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services flags any 
potential bars for the consideration of the immigration judge making a 
final determination on asylum eligibility. Since eligibility for asylum 
includes an applicability of any bars at 208(b)(2) or 241(b)(3) of the 
INA, DHS proposes modifications to the regulation to enable USCIS 
itself to apply the bars when making a credible fear of persecution 
determination.
    Alternatives: The alternative to this rule would be to continue 
under the current process without change.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the exact 
cost and benefit impacts of the proposed provisions. In general, DHS 
anticipates that there may be some impacts to the adjudication of some 
credible fear applications.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: John L. Lafferty, Chief, Asylum Division, 
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2090, Phone: 
202 272-8377, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC24

DHS--USCIS

72.  Employment Authorization Documents for Asylum Applicants

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208.7; 8 CFR 274a.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to 
propose regulatory amendments intended to promote greater 
accountability in the application process for requesting employment 
authorization and to deter the fraudulent filing of asylum applications 
for the purpose of obtaining Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).
    Statement of Need: This rule aims to make changes that strengthen 
eligibility and application requirements for asylum applicants who seek 
employment eligibility in the United States.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration and Nationality Act section 
208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), provides the Attorney General with 
authority to provide employment authorization to applicants for asylum 
by establishing regulations. The statute also states such applicants 
may not be granted asylum application-based employment authorization 
prior to 180 days after filing of the application for asylum. DHS has 
created regulations codifying employment authorization application 
procedures and eligibility, as well as renewal procedures, and is 
proposing modifications.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is still considering the 
qualitative and quantitative impacts of the proposed provisions.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.

[[Page 57880]]

    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Brandon B. Prelogar, Chief, International and 
Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, 
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 
272-8377, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC27

DHS--USCIS

Final Rule Stage

73. EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.6; 8 CFR 216.6.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In January 2017, the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) proposed to amend its regulations governing the employment-based, 
fifth preference (EB-5) immigrant investor classification. In general, 
under the EB-5 program, individuals are eligible to apply for lawful 
permanent residence in the United States if they make the necessary 
investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States and create 
or, in certain circumstances, preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for 
qualified U.S. workers. This rule sought public comment on a number of 
proposed changes to the EB-5 program regulations. Such proposed changes 
included: Raising the minimum investment amount; allowing certain EB-5 
petitioners to retain their original priority date; changing the 
designation process for targeted employment areas; and other 
miscellaneous changes to filing and interview processes.
    Statement of Need: The proposed regulatory changes are necessary to 
reflect statutory changes and codify existing policies, more accurately 
reflect existing and future economic realities, improve operational 
efficiencies to provide stakeholders with a higher level of 
predictability and transparency in the adjudication process, and 
enhance program integrity by clarifying key eligibility requirements 
for program participation and further detailing the processes required. 
Given the complexities involved in adjudicating benefit requests in the 
EB-5 program, along with continued program integrity concerns and 
increasing adjudication processing times, DHS has decided to revise the 
existing regulations to modernize key areas of the program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration Act (INA) authorizes the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to administer and enforce 
the immigration and nationality laws including establishing regulations 
deemed necessary to carry out her authority, and section 102 of the 
Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. 112, authorizes the Secretary to issue 
regulations. 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), INA section 103(a). INA section 
203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), also provides the Secretary with 
authority to make visas available to immigrants seeking to engage in a 
new commercial enterprise in which the immigrant has invested and which 
will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment 
for not fewer than 10 U.S. workers. Further, section 610 of Public Law 
102-395 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) created the Immigrant Investor Pilot 
Program and authorized the Secretary to set aside visas for individuals 
who invest in regional centers created for the purpose of concentrating 
pooled investment in defined economic zones, and was last amended by 
Public Law 107-296.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Due to data limitations and the 
complexity of EB-5 investment structures, it is difficult to quantify 
and monetize the costs and benefits of the provisions, with the 
exception of application costs for dependents who would file the 
Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident 
Status (Form I-829) separately from principal investors, and 
familiarization costs to review the rule.
    The raise in the investment amounts and reform of the targeted 
employment area (TEA) geography could deter some investors from 
participating in the EB-5 program. The increase in investment could 
reduce the number of investors as they may be unable or unwilling to 
invest at the higher proposed levels of investment. On the other hand, 
raising the investment amounts increases the amount invested by each 
investor and thereby potentially increases the total economic benefits 
of U.S. investment under this program. The proposed TEA provision would 
rule out TEA configurations that rely on a large number of census 
tracts indirectly linked to the actual project tract by numerous 
degrees of separation, and may better target investment capital to 
areas where unemployment rates are the highest.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/13/17  82 FR 4738
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/11/17  .......................
Final Rule..........................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Edie Pearson, Chief of Policy, Immigrant Investor 
Program Office, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20529-2200, 
Phone: 202 272-8377.
    Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB69.
    RIN: 1615-AC07

DHS--U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG)

Proposed Rule Stage

74.  Removal of Certain International Convention on Standards 
of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as 
Amended (STCW) Training Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 7101(c)
    CFR Citation: 46 CFR 11.317(a)(3)(iv); 46 CFR 11.321(a)(3)(iv); 46 
CFR 12.611(a)(4)(i).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Coast Guard proposes to remove three Coast Guard 
merchant mariner training requirements related to STCW officer and 
rating endorsements from its regulations in 46 CFR parts 11 and 12. The 
Coast Guard has determined these training requirements exceed current 
international certification and training standards of the STCW and 
cause a misalignment between the training of U.S. mariners and the 
mariners of other countries. These training requirements are not 
necessary for the safety of life and property at sea. The rule would 
remove: Leadership and managerial skills training to qualify as master 
of vessels of less than 500 gross tons limited to near-coastal waters; 
bridge resource management training to qualify as officer in charge of 
a navigational watch on vessels of less than 500 gross tons limited to 
near-coastal waters; and computer systems and maintenance training to 
qualify as electro-technical rating on vessels powered by main 
propulsion machinery of 750 kW/1,000 HP or more.

[[Page 57881]]

    Statement of Need: The Coast Guard determined the three training 
requirements exceed current international certification and training 
standards of the STCW and cause a misalignment between the training of 
U.S. mariners and the mariners of other countries. These training 
requirements are not necessary for the safety of life and property at 
sea.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The total 10-year discounted cost 
savings of this proposed rule would be $20,321,360, discounted at 7 
percent and 3 percent, respectively. The annualized total cost savings 
would be $2,032,136, discounted at 7 percent and 3 percent, 
respectively. Using a perpetual period of analysis, we estimate total 
annualized discounted cost savings of the rule would be approximately 
$1,658,828 in 2016 dollars, discounted at 7 percent.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Cathleen Mauro, Department of Homeland Security, 
U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20593-7509, Phone: 202 372-1449, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1625-AC48

DHS--USCG

Final Rule Stage

75. TWIC Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70105
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 105.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would partially delay the effective 
date for the final rule entitled ``Transportation Worker Identification 
Credential (TWIC) Reader Requirements,'' published in the Federal 
Register on August 23, 2016. Currently, the final rule is scheduled to 
be implemented after the Department of Homeland Security submits the 
report to Congress on the effectiveness of the TWIC program, required 
by the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Security Card 
Program Improvements and Assessment Act (Pub. L. 114-278). This 
proposed rule would further delay the effective date for certain 
facilities that handle certain dangerous cargoes (CDCs) in bulk or 
receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk.
    Statement of Need: After the publication of the Final Rule, the 
Coast Guard received inquiries from owners of facilities and vessels 
concerning the rule's requirements regarding the facilities affected by 
the final rule and several questions related to how the final rule 
addressed Certain Dangerous Cargoes. This proposed rule would provide 
the Coast Guard time to update its security-related databases and 
consider policy options relating to implementation of TWIC readers 
while addressing the inquiries.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NPRM estimated annualized cost 
savings to both industry and government as $1.15 million, using a seven 
percent discount rate and a 10-year period of analysis. Using a 
perpetual period of analysis, we estimated total annualized discounted 
cost savings of the rule would be approximately $0.552 million in 2016 
dollars, discounted at 7 percent. The benefits for partially delaying 
the effective date of the final rule for an additional 3 years are that 
it would allow the Coast Guard time to conduct additional analysis of 
the potential effects of the rule.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/22/18  83 FR 29067
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/23/18
Final Rule..........................   10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: LCDR Yamaris Barril, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20593, Phone: 202 372-1151, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1625-AC47

DHS--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (USCBP)

Final Rule Stage

76. Collection of Biometric Data From Aliens Upon Entry To and Exit 
From the United States

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1365a; 8 U.S.C. 1365b
    CFR Citation: 19 CFR 215.8; 19 CFR 235.1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is required by 
statute to develop and implement an integrated, automated entry and 
exit data system to match records, including biographic data and 
biometrics of aliens entering and departing the United States. In 
addition, Executive Order 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign 
Terrorist Entry into the United States, published in the Federal 
Register at 82 FR 13209, states that DHS is to expedite the completion 
and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system. Although 
the current regulations provide that DHS may require certain aliens to 
provide biometrics when entering and departing the United States, they 
only authorize DHS to collect biometrics from certain aliens upon 
departure under pilot programs at land ports and at up to 15 airports 
and seaports. To provide the legal framework for CBP to begin a 
comprehensive biometric entry-exit system, DHS is amending the 
regulations to remove the references to pilot programs and the port 
limitation. In addition, to enable CBP to make the process for 
verifying the identity of aliens more efficient, accurate, and secure 
by using facial recognition technology, DHS is amending the regulations 
to provide that all aliens may be required to be photographed upon 
entry and/or departure.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to provide the legal 
framework for DHS to begin implementing a comprehensive biometric 
entry-exit system. Collecting biometrics at departure will allow CBP 
and DHS to know with better accuracy whether aliens are departing the 
country when they are required to depart, reduce visa fraud, and 
improve CBP's ability to identify criminals and known or suspected 
terrorists before they depart the United States.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Numerous Federal statutes require DHS to 
create an integrated, automated biometric entry and exit system that 
records the arrival and departure of aliens, compares the biometric 
data of aliens to verify their identity, and authenticates travel 
documents presented by such aliens through the comparison of biometric 
identifiers. See, e.g., Immigration and Naturalization Service Data 
Management Improvement Act of 2002, the Intelligence Reform and

[[Page 57882]]

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the 2016 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act. In addition, Executive Order 13780, Protecting the 
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, states that 
DHS is to expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric 
entry-exit tracking system.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will allow CBP to know 
with greater certainty whether foreign visa holders depart the country 
when required. It will also prevent visa fraud and allow CBP to more 
easily identify criminals or terrorists when they attempt to leave the 
country. The technology used to implement this rule could also 
eventually be used to modify entry and exit procedures to reduce 
processing and wait times. This rule imposes opportunity and technology 
acquisition and maintenance costs on CBP and opportunity costs on the 
traveling public.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Michael Hardin, Director, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Entry/Exit Policy and 
Planning, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Office of Field Operations, 5th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 325-1053, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1651-AB12

DHS--USCBP

77. Implementation of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 
(ESTA) at U.S. Land Borders--Automation of CBP Form I-94W

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-53
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 217.2; 8 CFR 217.3; 8 CFR 217.5; 8 
CFR 286.9.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
regulations to implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 
(ESTA) requirements under section 711 of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, for aliens who 
intend to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) 
at land ports of entry. Currently, aliens from VWP countries must 
provide certain biographic information to U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) officers at land ports of entry on a paper I-94W 
Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94W). Under 
this rule, these VWP travelers will instead provide this information to 
CBP electronically through ESTA prior to application for admission to 
the United States. DHS has already implemented the ESTA requirements 
for aliens who intend to enter the United States under the VWP at air 
or sea ports of entry.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to implement the 
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) under section 711 of 
the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 for 
aliens who intend to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver 
Program at land ports of entry. ESTA was implemented at air and sea 
ports of entry in 2008. At that time, however, CBP did not have the 
ability to implement the program at land ports of entry. This rule will 
ensure that ESTA is now implemented at all ports of entry.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In addition to fulfilling a 
statutory mandate, the ESTA land rule will strengthen national security 
through enhanced traveler vetting, streamline entry processing through 
Form I-94W automation, reduce inadmissible traveler arrivals, and 
produce a consistent, modern VWP admission policy in all U.S. travel 
environments, which will benefit VWP travelers, CBP, and the public. 
The rule will also introduce time and fee costs to VWP travelers 
required to complete an ESTA application.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Kenneth Sava, Trusted Traveler Programs, Department 
of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of 
Field Operations, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20229, 
Phone: 202 344-2589, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1651-AB14

DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

78. Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1411, 1414, 
1512, 1520, 1522, and 1531
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Background and 
immigration status check for all public transportation frontline 
employees is due no later than 12 months after date of enactment.
    Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Background and immigration status 
check for all railroad frontline employees is due no later than 12 
months after date of enactment.
    Sections 1411 and 1520 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121 
Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), require background checks of frontline public 
transportation and railroad employees not later than one year from the 
date of enactment. Requirement will be met through regulatory action.
    Abstract: The 9/11 Act requires vetting of certain railroad, public 
transportation, and over-the-road bus employees. Through this 
rulemaking, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends to 
propose the mechanisms and procedures to conduct the required vetting. 
This regulation is related to 1652-AA55, Security Training for Surface 
Transportation Employees.
    Statement of Need: Employee vetting is an important and effective 
tool for averting or mitigating potential attacks by those with 
malicious intent who may target surface transportation and plan or 
perpetrate actions that may cause significant injuries, loss of life, 
or economic disruption.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is in the process of determining 
the costs and benefits of this rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.

[[Page 57883]]

    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, Deputy Director, Surface 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th 
Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-1145, Email: 
[email protected].
    Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross 
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-5839, 
Email: [email protected].
    Laura Gaudreau, Attorney--Advisor, Regulations and Security 
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-1088, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55.
    RIN: 1652-AA69

DHS--TSA

79. Amending Vetting Requirements for Employees With Access to a 
Security Identification Display Area (SIDA)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-190, sec. 3405
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1542.209; 49 CFR 1544.229.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 11, 2017, Rule for 
individuals with unescorted access to any Security Identification 
Display Area (SIDA) due 180 days after date of enactment.
    According to section 3405 of title III of the FAA Extension, 
Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (FAA Extension Act), Public Law 114-
190 (130 Stat. 615, July 15, 2016), a final rule revising the 
regulations under 49 U.S.C. 44936 is due 180 days after the date of 
enactment.
    Abstract: As required by the FAA Extension Act, the Transportation 
Security Administration (TSA) will propose a rule to revise its 
regulations, with current knowledge of insider threat and intelligence, 
to enhance the eligibility requirements and disqualifying criminal 
offenses for individuals seeking or having unescorted access to any 
SIDA of an airport. Consistent with the statutory mandate, TSA will 
consider adding to the list of disqualifying criminal offenses and 
criteria, develop a waiver process for approving the issuance of 
credentials for unescorted access, and propose an extension of the look 
back period for disqualifying crimes.
    Statement of Need: Employee vetting is an important and effective 
tool for averting or mitigating potential attacks by those with 
malicious intent who wish to target aviation and plan or perpetrate 
actions that may cause significant injuries, loss of life, or economic 
disruption. Enhancing eligibility standards for airport workers will 
improve transportation and national security.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is in the process of determining 
the costs and benefits of this rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Jason Hull, Aviation Program Manager, Department of 
Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Intelligence 
and Analysis, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6010, Phone: 
571 227-1175, Email: [email protected].
    Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross 
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-5839, 
Email: [email protected].
    Christine Beyer, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security 
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, TSA-2, HQ, E12-336N, 601 South 
12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3653, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA11
    RIN: 1652-AA70

DHS--TSA

Final Rule Stage

80. Protection of Sensitive Security Information

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 40119; 49 U.S.C. 44905; 
49 U.S.C. 46105
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 15; 49 CFR 1520.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In 2004, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
and Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) published an 
interim final rule (IFR) governing the protection of sensitive security 
information (SSI). See 49 CFR parts 15 (OST) and 1520 (TSA). Since that 
time, requirements for the protection of SSI have been modified by a 
subsequent IFR (2005) and regulations promulgated by the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), TSA, and Department of Homeland Security. These 
modifications have resulted in inconsistencies between TSA and OST 
regulations. TSA and OST are issuing a final rule that will harmonize 
the regulations and reduce regulatory burden through streamlining 
certain requirements and eliminating others.
    Statement of Need: TSA's SSI regulations were promulgated to meet a 
statutory requirement to protect information obtained or developed to 
meet TSA's security requirements. See 49 U.S.C. 114(r). DOT has a 
corresponding requirement under 49 U.S.C. 40119(b). Due to amendments 
made since the joint IFR was published in 2004, regulated parties must 
often consult multiple regulatory provisions to determine their 
responsibilities. Harmonizing these regulations and creating 
consistency between them will ease the burden of compliance and ensure 
consistent application of the SSI regulations by TSA and DOT. Further, 
TSA, in consultation with OST, is considering aligning the SSI 
requirements related to the names of persons identified as current, 
past, or applicants to be Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs) with the 
handling of Federal Air Marshals (FAMs). The modification to TSA's SSI 
regulations would protect lists of FFDO names, rather than a single 
FFDO name, and reduce the overall number of documents that are labeled 
SSI.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The final rule does not impose any 
new requirements. In addition to clarifying and harmonizing 
requirements, the rule

[[Page 57884]]

reduces regulatory burden by providing options for the SSI distribution 
statement. In addition, should TSA modify the regulations to handle 
FFDO names consistent with FAM names, it would result in a time savings 
and corresponding reduction in regulatory burden: Eliminating time that 
would otherwise be spent marking these documents SSI (industry) and 
reviewing these documents to ensure they are appropriately marked 
(TSA).
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule; Request for        05/18/04  69 FR 28066
 Comments.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   06/17/04  .......................
Interim Final Rule; Comment Period     07/19/04  .......................
 End.
Final Rule; Technical Amendment.....   01/07/05  70 FR 1379
Final Rule; Technical Amdt Effective   01/07/05  .......................
Notice-Information Collection;         11/01/06  71 FR 64288
 Emergency Approval.
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     02/04/07  72 FR 7059
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30-     06/18/07  72 FR 33511
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     08/03/10  75 FR 44974
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30-     10/15/10  75 FR 63499
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     08/16/13  78 FR 50076
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30-     01/15/14  79 FR 2679
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     11/25/16  81 FR 85243
 Day Revision.
Notice-Information Collection; 30-     06/16/17  82 FR 27852
 Day Revision.
Final Rule..........................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Additional Information: Joint rulemaking with Department of 
Transportation, Office of the Secretary (RIN No. 2105-AD59) Transferred 
from RIN 2110-AA10.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Holly Dickens, Senior Policy Analyst, Sensitive 
Security Information (SSI) Program, Department of Homeland Security, 
Transportation Security Administration, Security Services & 
Assessments, LE/FAMS, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6018, 
Phone: 571 227-3723, Email: [email protected].
    Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross 
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-5839, 
Email: [email protected].
    Laura Gaudreau, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security 
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-1088, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA05, Related to 1652-AA49
    RIN: 1652-AA08

DHS--TSA

81. Flight Training for Aliens and Other Designated Individuals; 
Security Awareness Training for Flight School Employees

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 469(b); 49 U.S.C. 114; 49 U.S.C. 44939; 
49 U.S.C. 46105
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1552.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, February 10, 2004, sec. 612(a) of 
Vision 100 requires TSA to issue an interim final rule within 60 days 
of enactment of Vision 100.
    Requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to 
establish a process to implement the requirements of section 612(a) of 
Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176, 
117 Stat. 2490, Dec. 12, 2003), including the fee provisions, not later 
than 60 days after the enactment of the Act.
    Abstract: The interim final rule (IFR) was published and effective 
on September 20, 2004. The IFR created a new part 1552, Flight Schools, 
in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This IFR applies 
to flight schools and to individuals who apply for or receive flight 
training. TSA subsequently issued exemptions and interpretations in 
response to comments on the IFR and questions raised during operation 
of the program since 2004. TSA also issued a fee notice on April 13, 
2009. This regulation requires flight schools to notify TSA when 
aliens, and other individuals designated by TSA, apply for flight 
training or recurrent training. TSA is considering a final rule that 
would change the frequency of security threat assessments from a high-
frequency event-based interval to a time-based interval, clarify the 
definitions and other provisions of the rule, and enable industry to 
use TSA-provided electronic recordkeeping systems for all documents 
required to demonstrate compliance with the rule.
    Statement of Need: In the years since TSA published the IFR, 
members of the aviation industry, the public, and Federal oversight 
organizations have identified areas where the Alien Flight Student 
Program (AFSP) could be improved. TSA's internal procedures and 
processes for vetting applicants also have improved and advanced. 
Publishing a final rule that addresses external recommendations and 
aligns with modern TSA vetting practices would streamline the AFSP 
application, vetting, and recordkeeping process for all parties 
involved.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is considering revising the 
requirements of the AFSP to reduce costs and industry burden. One 
action TSA is considering is an electronic recordkeeping platform where 
all flight providers would upload certain information to a TSA-managed 
website. Also at industry's request, TSA is considering changing the 
interval for a security threat assessment of each alien flight student, 
eliminating the requirement for a security threat assessment for each 
separate training event. This change would result in an annual savings, 
although there may be additional start-up and record retention costs 
for the agency as a result of these revisions. The benefits of these 
deregulatory actions would be immediate cost savings to flight schools 
and alien students without compromising the security profile.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule; Request for        09/20/04  69 FR 56324
 Comments.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   09/20/04  .......................
Interim Final Rule; Comment Period     10/20/04  .......................
 End.

[[Page 57885]]

 
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     11/26/04  69 FR 68952
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30-     03/30/05  70 FR 16298
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     06/06/08  73 FR 32346
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30-     08/13/08  73 FR 47203
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Alien Flight Student Program    04/13/09  74 FR 16880
 Recurrent Training Fees.
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     09/21/11  76 FR 58531
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30-     01/31/12  77 FR 4822
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     03/10/15  80 FR 12647
 Day Renewal.
Notice-Information Collection; 30-     06/18/15  80 FR 34927
 Day Renewal.
IFR; Comment Period Reopened........   05/18/18  83 FR 23238
IFR; Comment Period Reopened End....   06/18/18  .......................
Notice-Information Collection; 60-     07/06/18  83 FR 31561
 Day Renewal.
Final Rule..........................   02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Johannes Knudsen, Program Manager, Alien Flight 
Student Program, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Intelligence and Analysis, 601 South 12th 
Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6010, Phone: 571 227-2188, Email: 
[email protected].
    Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross 
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-5839, 
Email: [email protected].
    David Ross, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, 
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-2465, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA61
    RIN: 1652-AA35

DHS--TSA

 82. Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1405, 1408, 
1501, 1512, 1517, 1531, and 1534.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1500; 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 
49 CFR 1582 (new); 49 CFR 1584 (new).
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2007, Interim Rule 
for public transportation agencies is due 90 days after date of 
enactment.
    Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation 
agencies is due one year after date of enactment.
    Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-
the-road buses is due 6 months after date of enactment.
    According to sec. 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121 
Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), interim final regulations for public 
transportation agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment 
(Nov. 1, 2007), and final regulations are due one year after the date 
of enactment. According to sec. 1517 of the 9/11 Act, final regulations 
for railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than 6 months 
after the date of enactment.
    Abstract: The 9/11 Act requires security training for employees of 
higher-risk freight railroad carriers, public transportation agencies 
(including rail mass transit and bus systems), passenger railroad 
carriers, and over-the-road bus (OTRB) companies. This final rule 
implements the regulatory mandate. Owner/operators of these higher-risk 
railroads, systems, and companies will be required to train employees 
performing security-sensitive functions, using a curriculum addressing 
preparedness and how to observe, assess, and respond to terrorist-
related threats and/or incidents. As part of this rulemaking, the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is expanding its current 
requirements for rail security coordinators and reporting of 
significant security concerns (currently limited to freight railroads, 
passenger railroads, and the rail operations of public transportation 
systems) to include the bus components of higher-risk public 
transportation systems and higher-risk OTRB companies. TSA is also 
adding a definition for Transportation Security-Sensitive Materials 
(TSSM). Other provisions are being amended or added, as necessary, to 
implement these additional requirements.
    Statement of Need: Employee training is an important and effective 
tool for averting or mitigating potential attacks by those with 
malicious intent who may target surface transportation and plan or 
perpetrate actions that may cause significant injuries, loss of life, 
or economic disruption.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1402, 1408, 1501, 
1517, 1531, and 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007).
    Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations 
requiring security training programs for these owner/operators. As part 
of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA sought public comment on 
alternatives in which the final rule could carry out the requirements 
of the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Owner/operators will incur costs for 
training their employees, developing a training plan, maintaining 
training records, and participating in inspections for compliance. Some 
owner/operators will also incur additional costs associated with 
assigning security coordinators and reporting significant security 
incidents to TSA. TSA will incur costs associated with reviewing owner/
operators' training plans, registering owner/operators' security 
coordinators, responding to owner/operators' reported significant 
security incidents, and conducting inspections for compliance with this 
rule. In the NPRM, TSA estimated the annualized cost from this 
regulation to be approximately $22 million, discounted at 7 percent. As 
part of TSA's risk-based security, benefits include mitigating 
potential attacks by heightening awareness of employees on the 
frontline. In addition, by designating security coordinators and 
reporting significant security concerns to TSA, TSA has a direct line 
for communicating threats and receiving information necessary to 
analyze trends and potential threats across all modes of 
transportation.
    Risks: The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent 
terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the 
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By providing for 
security training for personnel, TSA intends in

[[Page 57886]]

this rulemaking to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on this 
transportation sector.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice; Request for Comment.........   06/14/13  78 FR 35945
Notice; Comment Period End..........   07/15/13  .......................
NPRM................................   12/16/16  81 FR 91336
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/16/17  .......................
Final Rule..........................   11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, Deputy Director, Surface 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th 
Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-1145, Email: 
[email protected].
    Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch--Cross 
Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-5839, 
Email: [email protected].
    Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security 
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3596, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA56, Merged with 1652-AA57, Merged 
with 1652-AA59
    RIN: 1652-AA55

DHS--U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (USICE)

Proposed Rule Stage

83. Apprehension, Processing, Care and Custody of Alien Minors and 
Unaccompanied Alien Children

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1225 to 
1227; 8 U.S.C. 1362
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 236; 8 CFR 208.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In 1985, a class-action suit challenged the policies of 
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) relating to the 
detention, processing, and release of alien children; the case 
eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the challenged INS regulations on their face and 
remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. 
In January 1997, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement 
agreement, referred to as the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA). The 
FSA was to terminate five years after the date of final court approval; 
however, the termination provisions were modified in 2001, such that 
the FSA does not terminate until 45 days after publication of 
regulations implementing the agreement.
    Since 1997, intervening statutory changes, including passage of the 
Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking 
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), have 
significantly changed the applicability of certain provisions of the 
FSA. The rule would codify the relevant and substantive terms of the 
FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and 
litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, DHS, HHS, and 
DOJ will create a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family 
units while satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule will also 
implement related provisions of the TVPRA.
    Statement of Need: In 1985, a class-action suit challenged the 
policies of the former INS relating to the detention, processing, and 
release of alien children; the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme 
Court. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged INS 
regulations on their face and remanded the case for further proceedings 
consistent with its opinion. In January 1997, the parties reached a 
comprehensive settlement agreement, referred to as the FSA. The FSA was 
to terminate 5 years after the date of final court approval; however, 
the termination provisions were modified in 2001, such that the FSA 
does not terminate until 45 days after publication of regulations 
implementing the agreement.
    Since 1997, intervening legal changes including passage of the HSA 
and TVPRA have significantly changed the applicability of certain 
provisions of the FSA. The rule will codify the relevant and 
substantive terms of the FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek 
termination of the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement. 
Through this rule, DHS, HHS, and DOJ will create a pathway to ensure 
the humane detention of family units while satisfying the goals of the 
FSA. The rule will also implement related provisions of the TVPRA.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives: Prior to proposing this rule, DHS considered the 
alternative to publishing this rule, which was not to promulgate 
regulations. This has required the Government to adhere to the terms of 
the FSA, as interpreted by the courts, which also rejected the 
Government's efforts to amend the FSA to help it better conform to 
existing legal and operational realities.
    The primary source of new costs for the proposed rule would be a 
result of the proposed alternative licensing process, which ICE expects 
to extend detention of some minors and their accompanying parent or 
legal guardian in FRCs. This may increase variable annual FRC costs 
paid by ICE. The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be to 
ensure that applicable regulations reflect the Departments' current 
operations with respect to minors and UACs in accordance with the 
relevant and substantive terms of the FSA and the TVPRA. Further, by 
departing from the FSA in limited cases to reflect the intervening 
statutory and operational changes, ICE will ensure that it retains 
discretion to detain families, as appropriate, to meet its enforcement 
needs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary source of new costs for 
the proposed rule would be a result of the proposed alternative 
licensing process which ICE expects to extend detention of some minors 
and their accompanying parent or legal guardian in Family Residential 
Centers (FRCs). This may increase variable annual FRC costs paid by 
ICE. The primary benefit of the rule would be to ensure that applicable 
regulations reflect the Department's current operations with respect to 
minors and Unaccompanied Minor Children (UACs) in accordance with the 
relevant and substantive terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) 
and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). 
Further, by departing from the FSA in limited cases to reflect the 
intervening statutory and operational changes, ICE will ensure that it 
retains discretion to detain families, as appropriate, to meet its 
enforcement needs.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

[[Page 57887]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/07/18  83 FR 45486
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/06/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Mark Lawyer, Chief, Regulations, Department of 
Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th 
Street SW, Mail Stop 5006, Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-5683, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0970-AC42.
    RIN: 1653-AA75

DHS--USICE

84.  Establishing a Maximum Period of Authorized Stay for F-1 
and Other Nonimmigrants

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 
U.S.C. 1184
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will 
propose to modify the period of authorized stay for certain categories 
of nonimmigrants traveling to the United States from ``duration of 
status'' (D/S) and to replace such with a maximum period of authorized 
stay, and options for extensions, for each applicable visa category.
    Statement of Need: The failure to provide certain categories of 
nonimmigrants with specific dates for their authorized periods of stay 
can cause confusion over how long they may lawfully remain in the 
United States and has complicated the efforts to reduce overstay rates 
for nonimmigrant students. The clarity created by date-certain 
admissions will help reduce the overstay rate.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: ICE is in the process of assessing 
the costs and benefits that would be incurred by regulated entities and 
individuals, as well as the costs and benefits to the public at large. 
ICE, SEVP certified schools, nonimmigrant students, and the employers 
of nonimmigrant students who participate in practical training would 
incur costs for increased requirements. This rule is intended to 
decrease the incidence of nonimmigrant student overstays and improve 
the integrity of the nonimmigrant student visa.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Mark Lawyer, Chief, Regulations, Department of 
Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th 
Street SW, Mail Stop 5006, Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-5683, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1653-AA78

DHS--USICE

Final Rule Stage

85. Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1372; 8 U.S.C. 1762; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 
U.S.C. 1356; 31 U.S.C 901 to 903; 31 U.S.C. 902
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: ICE will publish a final rule to adjust fees that the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) charges individuals and 
organizations. In 2017, SEVP conducted a comprehensive fee study and 
determined that current fees do not recover the full costs of the 
services provided. ICE has determined that adjusting fees is necessary 
to fully recover the increased costs of SEVP operations, program 
requirements, and to provide the necessary funding to sustain 
initiatives critical to supporting national security. The final rule 
will adjust fees for individuals and organizations. The SEVP fee 
schedule was last adjusted in a rule published on September 26, 2008.
    Statement of Need: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) 
conducted a comprehensive fee study in 2017 and determined that current 
fees, most recently adjusted in 2008, do not recover the full costs of 
the services provided. ICE has determined that adjusting fees is 
necessary to fully recover the increased costs of SEVP operations, 
program requirements, and to provide the necessary funding to implement 
and sustain initiatives critical to supporting national security. ICE 
will publish a final rule to adjust its fees for individuals and 
organizations.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To recover the full cost of its 
budget for the services it provides, SEVP has proposed to increase the 
amounts of its fees for SEVP certified schools and for those schools 
that will seek SEVP certification, for F and M nonimmigrant students, 
and for J nonimmigrant exchange visitors. The fee adjustment would 
allow SEVP to continue to maintain and improve SEVIS in order to uphold 
the integrity of the U.S. immigration laws regarding student and 
exchange visitors.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/17/18  83 FR 33762
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/17/18  .......................
Final Rule..........................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Policy and Response 
Unit, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, Potomac Center North STOP 5600, 500 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20536-5600, Phone: 703 603-5600.
    RIN: 1653-AA74

DHS--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)

Final Rule Stage

86. Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor's Request for 
Individual Assistance for a Major Disaster

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 to 5207
    CFR Citation: 44 CFR 206.48(b).
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 29, 2014, sec. 1109 of 
the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, Public Law 113-2.
    The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA) requires the 
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in 
cooperation with representatives of

[[Page 57888]]

State, Tribal, and local emergency management agencies, to review, 
update, and revise through rulemaking the individual assistance factors 
FEMA uses to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster 
(not later than 1 year after enactment).
    Abstract: FEMA is issuing a final rule to revise its regulations to 
comply with section 1109 of SRIA. SRIA requires FEMA, in cooperation 
with State, local, and Tribal emergency management agencies, to review, 
update, and revise through rulemaking the Individual Assistance (IA) 
factors FEMA uses to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a 
disaster. FEMA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the matter 
on November 12, 2015.
    Statement of Need: On January 29, 2013, SRIA was enacted into law 
(Pub. L. 113-2). Section 1109 of SRIA requires FEMA, in cooperation 
with State, local, and Tribal emergency management agencies, to review, 
update, and revise through rulemaking the factors found at 44 CFR 
206.48 that FEMA uses to determine whether to recommend provision of 
Individual Assistance (IA) during a major disaster. These factors help 
FEMA measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster, as well 
as the capabilities of the affected jurisdictions.
    FEMA is issuing this final rule to comply with SRIA and to provide 
clarity on the IA factors that FEMA currently considers in support of 
its recommendation to the President on whether a major disaster 
declaration authorizing IA is warranted. The additional clarity may 
reduce delays in the declaration process by decreasing the back and 
forth between States and FEMA during the declaration process.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FEMA has authority for this final rule 
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (Stafford Act). 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. Section 401 of 
the Stafford Act lays out the procedures for a declaration for FEMA's 
major disaster assistance programs when a catastrophe occurs in a 
State. The specific changes in this final rule comply with section 1109 
of SRIA, Public Law 113-2.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 2015 NPRM proposed to codify 
current declaration considerations and introduced new factors that FEMA 
would use when reviewing and recommending a major disaster declaration 
request that includes IA. Codifying the factors that capture FEMA's 
current declaration practice and considerations would not result in 
additional costs. However, the new factors would have small burden 
increases associated with obtaining the additional information. FEMA 
does not anticipate the rule would impact the number of major disaster 
declaration requests received that include IA or the amount of IA 
assistance provided, and therefore there would be no impact to transfer 
payments.
    FEMA estimated the 10-year present value total cost of the proposed 
rule would be $15,806 and $13,302 if discounted at 3 and 7 percent, 
respectively. The annualized cost of the proposed rule would be $1,853 
at 3 percent and $1,894 at 7 percent. (All amounts in the NPRM are 
presented in 2013 dollars.) Benefits of the proposed rule include 
clarifying FEMA's existing practices, reducing processing time for 
requests due to clarifications, and providing States with notice of the 
new information FEMA is proposing to consider as part of the IA 
declarations process.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/12/15  80 FR 70116
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/11/16
Final Rule..........................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket ID FEMA-2014-0005.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Mark Millican, Individual Assistance Division, 
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472-3100, Phone: 202 212-3221, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1660-AA83

DHS--FEMA

87. Update to FEMA's Regulations on Rulemaking Procedures

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553
    CFR Citation: 44 CFR 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposed 
to revise its regulations pertaining to rulemaking. It removes sections 
that are outdated or do not affect the public, and it updates 
provisions that affect the public's participation in the rulemaking 
process, such as the submission of public comments, hearings, ex parte 
communications, the public rulemaking docket, and petitions for 
rulemaking. FEMA also modifies its waiver of the Administrative 
Procedure Act exemption for matters relating to public property, loans, 
grants, benefits, and contracts.
    Statement of Need: This final rule removes sections of FEMA's 
rulemaking provisions that are outdated or that do not affect the 
public, and updates provisions that affect the public's participation 
in the rulemaking process.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule does not impose additional 
direct costs on the public or government.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/07/17  82 FR 26411
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/07/17
Final Rule..........................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Docket ID FEMA-2017-0016.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Liza Davis, Associate Chief Counsel, Regulatory 
Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, 500 C Street SW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20472, Phone: 202 
646-4046, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1660-AA91

BILLING CODE: 9110-9B-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Fall 2018 Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2019

Introduction

    The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 highlights the most 
significant regulations and policy initiatives that HUD seeks to 
complete during the upcoming fiscal year. As the Federal

[[Page 57889]]

agency that serves as the nation's housing agency, HUD is committed to 
addressing the housing needs of all Americans by creating strong, 
sustainable, inclusive communities, and quality affordable homes. As a 
result, HUD plays a significant role in the lives of families and in 
communities throughout America.
    HUD is currently working to develop an innovative approach that 
anticipates the housing needs of the future while addressing current 
needs. HUD's 2018-2022 strategic plan focuses on rethinking American 
communities by refocusing on HUD's core mission and modernizing HUD's 
approach, leveraging private-sector partnerships, supporting 
sustainable homeownership, encouraging affordable housing investments, 
and redesigning HUD's internal processes. HUD's regulatory plan for 
FY2019 reflects Secretary Carson's strategic plan and HUD's mission.
    In addition to the highlighted rule in this plan, Secretary Carson 
directed HUD, consistent with Executive Order 13771, entitled 
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' to identify 
and eliminate or streamline regulations that are wasteful, inefficient 
or unnecessary. The Secretary has also led HUD's implementation of 
Executive Order 13777, entitled ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 
Agenda.'' Executive Order 13777 supplements and reaffirms the 
rulemaking principles of Executive Order 13771 by directing each agency 
to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing 
regulations to identify those that merit repeal, replacement, or 
modification; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; eliminate or 
inhibit job creation; impose costs that exceed benefits; or derive from 
or implement Executive Orders that have been rescinded or significantly 
modified. As a result of Secretary's Carson's direction, HUD's Fall 
2019 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions lists two 
anticipated regulatory actions and twelve deregulatory actions.
    The rules highlighted in HUD's regulatory plan for FY2019 reflects 
HUD's efforts to develop innovative approaches that anticipate the 
housing needs of the future, including the removal or revision of 
regulations that HUD has determined are outdated, unnecessary, or 
ineffective.

Streamlining the ``Section 3'' Requirements for Creating Economic 
Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons and Eligible 
Businesses: Deregulation

    The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment, training, 
contracting, and other economic opportunities generated by certain HUD 
financial assistance are directed to low- and very low-income persons, 
particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for 
housing, and to businesses that provide economic opportunities to low- 
and very low-income persons. HUD's current regulations for Section 3 
have not been updated in over 20 years. HUD's experience in 
administering Section 3 over time has provided insight as to how HUD 
could improve the effectiveness of its Section 3 regulations. 
Additionally, HUD has heard from the public that there is a need for 
regulatory changes to clarify and simplify the existing requirements. 
HUD concluded that regulatory changes are needed to streamline Section 
3 and more effectively help recipients of HUD funds achieve the 
purposes of the Section 3 statute. HUD's proposed rule would update the 
regulations implementing Section 3 by aligning the reporting with 
standard business practice; amending the applicability section; 
updating reporting and adding new outcome benchmarks; and integrating 
Section 3 into program enforcement.
    The new rule generally proposes the tracking and reporting of labor 
hours, rather than new hires. HUD believes that this is more consistent 
with the business practices of most HUD recipients, which already track 
labor hours in their payroll systems because they are subject to 
prevailing wage rates under the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, or HUD 
prevailing wage requirements. A labor-hours frame-work focuses on the 
outcome that Section 3 requirements are intended to promote, i.e., 
increasing the amount of paid employment and work experience for low-
income persons. Tracking labor hours creates incentives for employers 
to retain and invest in their low-income workers by removing the 
opportunity for employers to manipulate HUD's current regulations by 
hiring the same employee for several short, temporary jobs over the 
course of a reporting period.
    This proposed rule would maintain the statutory scope of 
applicability while providing separate subparts relating to the 
different types of funding sources that have associated Section 3 
requirements: (1) Public housing financial assistance, which covers 
development assistance provided pursuant to section 5 of the U.S. 
Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) and operating and capital fund 
assistance provided pursuant to section 9 of the 1937 Act; and (2) 
Section 3 projects, which covers (a) housing rehabilitation, housing 
construction and other public construction projects funded with HUD 
program assistance, when such cumulative assistance to a jurisdiction 
exceeds a $200,000 threshold; and (b) housing rehabilitation or 
construction projects that include multiple funding sources, one or 
more of which is associated with Section 3 requirements. HUD would also 
update the $200,000 cumulative assistance threshold for Section 3 
projects applicability to encompass a narrower scope. HUD believes that 
this change would reduce the burden on smaller projects.
    In addition, HUD's proposed rule would change the process for 
meeting a safe harbor for compliance with the Section 3 requirements 
and reporting of Section 3 data. HUD's current regulations provide for 
a safe harbor where recipients demonstrate compliance with Section 3 by 
meeting numerical goals for the percentage of their new hires that 
qualify as Section 3 residents. In addition to hiring Section 3 workers 
generally, the Section 3 statute directs for recipients of Section 3 
covered assistance to target their efforts to provide employment and 
economic opportunities to specific groups of low-income individuals. 
HUD's proposed rule would create two ``Targeted Section 3 Worker'' 
definitions that would track, according to the type of funding source, 
the numbers of Section 3 workers who are (a) reported by Section 3 
business concerns, or (b) represent the priority categories included in 
the statute and selected by HUD, i.e., housing project residents. The 
proposed new rule would also require that recipients report the labor 
hours performed by Section 3 Workers as a percentage of the total labor 
hours, and labor hours performed by Targeted Section 3 Workers as a 
percentage of the total labor hours.
    Using the new reporting metrics, HUD would set benchmarks for the 
safe harbor through Federal Register notice, so HUD can update the 
metrics in response to additional data. It would also ensure that 
recipients hire workers from the priority groups, consistent with the 
statute. As HUD gathers data under the new rule, HUD can more easily 
revise benchmark figures or tailor different benchmarks for different 
geographies and different funding types. If a recipient is complying 
with the statutory priorities and meeting the

[[Page 57890]]

outcome benchmarks, HUD would presume they are exerting the statutorily 
prescribed level of effort. Otherwise, the recipients would be required 
to submit qualitative reports on their efforts, as they are required to 
do under the current rule when they do not meet the safe harbor, and 
HUD may do more in-depth compliance reviews. PHAs with fewer than 250 
units would only be required to report on Section 3 qualitative efforts 
and would not be required to report on whether they have met the 
reporting benchmarks.
    Lastly, HUD's proposal would provide that program staff would 
incorporate Section 3 compliance and oversight into regular program 
oversight and make Section 3 a more integral part of the program 
office's work. As a result, this proposed rule would streamline the 
extensive complaint and compliance review procedures in the current 
rule. Relatedly, it would remove the delegation of authority in the 
current regulations, as Section 3 requirements, reporting, and 
compliance activities would be aligned with those of the applicable HUD 
program office or offices.
    HUD envisions this rule being completed in FY 2019.

Aggregate Costs and Benefits

    Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide 
its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all 
regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be 
pursued in FY 2019. HUD expects that the neither the total economic 
costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.

Project Approval for Single-Family Condominiums

    This rule would codify HUD's program to approve condominium 
projects for FHA insurance pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1707(a), as amended by 
section 2117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), 
which defines a mortgage eligible for FHA insurance as a first lien on 
a one-family unit along with an undivided interest in the common areas 
and facilities which serve the project. This codification would make 
current requirements for the program less strict and prescriptive, 
giving the condominium industry greater flexibility.
    The FHA Condominium program is currently administered under the 
Condominium Approval and Processing Guide (the Guide). The Guide has a 
number of ``bright line'' requirements. This final rule would, on the 
other hand, establish more flexible and less costly requirements. The 
rule retains those requirements that are necessary to fulfill HUD's 
duty to avoid excessive risk to the insurance fund but does so in a 
less prescriptive way. This should result in increasing FHA 
participation in the condominium market and make condominiums more 
widely available. Condominium units are a valuable source of 
homeownership for moderate and lower-income families.
    To provide for flexibility the rule would remove strict numeric 
requirements in favor of provisions that permit HUD to act within 
ranges. Specifically, where the Guide currently has strict numerical 
requirements regarding the allowable percentage of FHA-insured 
projects, the percentage of owner occupants, and the amount of space 
that can be used for commercial or nonresidential purposes, the final 
rule would make these percentages flexible and efficient to change, so 
that HUD can adjust to changing market conditions. HUD anticipates 
providing for the ability to change these threshold percentages by 
notice, rather than regulation, the rule would allow HUD to quickly 
adjust these percentages to be responsive to the market. There is also 
a provision for HUD to grant exceptions to these percentages on a case-
by-case basis, considering factors relating to the economy for the 
locality in which the project is located or specific to the project. 
The percentage range limits themselves may be changed by publishing a 
notice for a brief period of public comment.
    The final rule would also allow for single units to be approved for 
mortgage insurance outside of the project approval process. Unlike the 
Guide that does not provide a provision for insuring mortgages on units 
other than in an approved project, this rule recognizes that there may 
be situations where a project may not be approved, not because of any 
significant inherent problem with the project that creates risk to the 
insurance fund (e.g., the Homeowners' Association does not want to go 
to the expense of applying for approval). In such cases, the rule would 
allow for a percentage of single units to be approved for mortgage 
insurance outside of the project approval process, under certain 
guidelines designed to reduce unacceptable risk to the insurance fund.
    The rule would institute front-end standards for mortgagees to 
qualify to participate as Direct Endorsement lenders in the DELRAP, or 
Direct Endorsement Review and Approval Program. Once qualified, these 
lenders have the ability to review and approve condominium loans, with 
HUD having the authority to intervene in the case of misconduct or 
unacceptable performance. Ensuring that Direct Endorsement mortgagees 
have staff members with relevant condominium experience helps to 
mitigate risks to the insurance fund.

Aggregate Costs and Benefits

    Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide 
its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all 
regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be 
pursued in FY 2018. HUD expects that the neither the total economic 
costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and Enhancements

    On July 16, 2015, HUD published in the Federal Register its 
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final rule. The goal of 
the regulation was to provide HUD program participants with a revised 
planning approach to assist them in meeting their statutory obligation 
to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing 
Act. The principal AFFH regulations are codified in 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart A, with other AFFH related regulations codified in 24 CFR parts 
91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903. HUD is committed to its mission of 
achieving fair housing opportunity for all, regardless of race, color, 
religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. 
However, HUD's experience over the three years since the newly-
specified approach was promulgated demonstrates that the rule is not 
fulfilling its purpose to be an efficient means for guiding meaningful 
action by program participants.
    Under the AFFH rule, HUD program participants are required to use 
an Assessment Tool to conduct and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing 
(AFH) to HUD. Because of the variations in the HUD program participants 
subject to the AFFH rule, HUD went through a process to develop three 
separate assessment tools: one for local governments, one for public 
housing agencies, and one for States and Insular Areas. Due to varying 
technical and other issues, only the Assessment Tool for local 
governments was ever made available for use. However, HUD withdrew the 
Local Government Assessment Tool in a Federal Register notice published 
on May 23, 2018 as a result of its review of the initial round of AFH 
submissions that were developed using the tool. This review led HUD to 
conclude that the tool was unworkable based upon: (1) The high failure 
rate from the initial

[[Page 57891]]

round of submissions; and (2) the level of technical assistance HUD 
provided to this initial round of 49 AFHs, which cannot be scaled up to 
accommodate the increase in the number of local government program 
participants with AFH submission deadlines in 2018 and 2019.
    On May 15, 2017, HUD published a Federal Register notice consistent 
with Executive Orders 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs,'' and 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 
Agenda,'' inviting public comments to assist HUD in identifying 
existing regulations that may be outdated, ineffective, or excessively 
burdensome. HUD received 299 comments in response to the Notice, and 
136 (45% of the total) discussed the AFFH rule. Most of these comments 
were critical of the AFFH rule and cited its complexity and the costs 
associated with completing an AFH.
    As HUD begins the process of developing a new proposed rule, HUD 
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on August 16, 
2018, at 83 FR 40713, which invites public comment on amendments to the 
AFFH regulations. HUD is also reviewing comments submitted in response 
to the withdrawal of the Local Government Assessment Tool and will 
consider those comments during HUD's consideration of potential changes 
to the AFFH regulations. HUD will use these sets of comments in 
drafting future rulemaking.

Aggregate Costs and Benefits

    Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide 
its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all 
regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be 
pursued in FY 2018. At this pre-rule stage, HUD expects that the 
neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will 
exceed $100 million.

HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (HUDSEC)

Proposed Rule Stage

88. Enhancing and Streamlining the Implementation of ``Section 3'' 
Requirements for Creating Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-
Income Persons and Eligible Businesses

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    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 5, 14, 75, 91, 92, 93, 135, 266,; 570, 576, 
578, 905, 964, 983, and 1000.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule revises HUD's regulations for Section 3 of the 
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended by the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1992 (Section 3), which ensures 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. HUD's regulations implementing the requirements of 
Section 3 have not been updated since 1994 and are not as effective at 
promoting economic opportunity for low-income persons as HUD believes 
they could be. This proposed rule would update HUD's Section 3 
regulations to streamline reporting requirements by aligning the 
reporting with standard business practice; amending the applicability 
section; updating reporting and adding new outcome benchmarks; and 
integrating Section 3 into program enforcement. The purpose of these 
changes is to reduce regulatory burden, increase compliance with 
Section 3 requirements, and increase Section 3 opportunities for low-
income persons.
    Statement of Need: Over 24 years ago, HUD's Section 3 regulations 
were promulgated through an interim rule published on June 30, 1994, at 
59 FR 33880. Since HUD promulgated the current set of Section 3 
regulations, significant legislation has been enacted that affects HUD 
programs that are subject to the requirements of Section 3. HUD has 
also heard from the public that there is a need for regulatory changes 
to clarify and simplify the existing requirements. HUD concluded that 
regulatory changes are needed to streamline Section 3 and more 
effectively help recipients of HUD funds achieve the purposes of the 
Section 3 statute.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 U.S.C. 1450; 42 U.S.C. 
3301; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The purpose of Section 3 is to 
provide jobs, including apprenticeship opportunities, to public housing 
residents and other specific low- and very low-income residents of a 
local area, and contracting opportunities for businesses that 
substantially employ these persons. However, the Section 3 requirement 
itself does not create additional jobs or contracts. Instead, Section 3 
redirects local jobs and contracts created as a result of the 
expenditure of HUD funds to Section 3 residents and businesses residing 
and operating in the area in which the HUD funds are expended. 
Currently, Section 3 rules require that a certain percent of new hires 
are Section 3 residents. HUD has determined that this measure has led 
to churning, where employers create a series of short-term jobs and 
hire and fire an employee in order to meet their Section 3 numeric 
goals. The proposed rule will curb these practices by changing the 
metric to a percentage of hours worked. HUD anticipates that the change 
will incentivize employers to create long-term employment opportunities 
as employers shift their focus to reporting hours worked, a factor that 
aligns with business practices, rather than on providing employment for 
a specific number of new hires. HUD also anticipates that the rule's 
streamlined reporting requirements will contribute to an increase in 
the number of employment opportunities provided to Section 3 residents 
and more funds for Section 3 businesses. HUD estimates that proposed 
rule would result in an estimated reporting and recordkeeping burden 
reduction of 25,910 hours or $1.2 million a year. These figures are 
preliminary estimates and may be updated pending OMB review.
    Initial compliance costs are expected to be minimal and one-time as 
recipients shift their practices to meet the new requirements. For 
example, some recipients may have difficulty determining whether 
employees live in a Qualified Census Tract, or whether they live within 
a certain distance of a worksite. However, HUD plans to create tools to 
assist recipients in making these determinations. HUD will pay 
attention to public comment on this issue to ensure that compliance 
costs are indeed reduced by this rule change.
    Benefits to low-income and very low-income persons are difficult to 
quantify. As described below, the change from measuring new hires to 
measuring labor hours could not only reduce churn but, depending on the 
initial benchmarks established, could also result in employers not 
needing to add new Section 3 workers in the short-term. However, 
tracking the amount of work performed by Targeted Section 3 workers 
would help ensure that the priorities of Section 3 are being 
considered, consistent with the statutory requirement, when recipients 
hire and distribute hours to low-income

[[Page 57892]]

workers. As HUD tracks the new data reported by recipients, HUD expects 
to move the benchmarks to ensure that recipients are driven to increase 
their Section 3 opportunities, consistent with the Section 3 statutory 
intent that Federal financial assistance is, to the greatest extent 
feasible, directed toward low- and very low-income persons, 
particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for 
housing. The goal is that those recipients of government assistance for 
housing will find Section 3 employment and a path to financial security 
that removes the need for long-term government assistance.
    The initial benefit of this rule is the reduction in administrative 
costs to both HUD and recipients of HUD financing, which results from 
aligning the Section 3 requirements with what businesses already track. 
HUD believes this change would improve compliance by recipients.
    Risks: A potential risk in switching from reporting and tracking 
new hires to labor hours is that the number of Section 3 workers being 
hired might decrease or remain flat. However, this would be because 
employers have a financial incentive to retain current Section 3 
workers rather than hire new Section 3 workers under this rule. This 
would be due, in part, to employers losing the existing incentive to 
churn workers in order to count new hires. Additionally, if data shows 
that this rule is not increasing employment opportunities for Section 3 
workers over time, HUD can adjust the new Section 3 benchmarks to 
increase the number of labor hours performed by Section 3 workers that 
employers would need to meet in order to demonstrate compliance with 
this requirement.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Deputy Director, Office of 
Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-4673.
    Thomas R. Davis, Director, Office of Recapitalization, Office of 
Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the 
Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-
0001.
    Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, 
Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-2684.
    RIN: 2501-AD87

HUD--OFFICE OF HOUSING (OH)

Final Rule Stage

89. Project Approval for Single Family Condominium (FR-5715)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1707, 1709 and 1710; 12 U.S.C. 1715b; 12 
U.S.C. 1715y; 12 U.S.C. 1715z-16; 12 U.S.C. 1715u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 203.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule implements HUD's authority under the 
single-family mortgage insurance provisions of the National Housing Act 
to insure one-family units in a multifamily project, including a 
project in which the dwelling units are attached, or are manufactured 
housing units, semi-detached, or detached, and an undivided interest in 
the common areas and facilities which serve the project. The rule 
provides for requirements for lenders to obtain approval under the 
Direct Endorsement Lender Review and Approval Process (DELRAP) 
authority for condominiums, and for standards that projects must meet 
to be approved for mortgage insurance on individual units. The rule 
provides for flexibility with respect to the concentration of FHA-
insured units, owner-occupied units, and the amount that can be set 
aside for commercial and non-residential space. This will enable HUD to 
vary these standards, within parameters, to meet market needs.
    Statement of Need: The Housing Opportunities through Modernization 
Act of 2016 requires HUD to issue regulations on the commercial space 
requirements for condominium projects; these regulations would be 
codified in HUD's Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) volume. Having one 
portion of the basic program rules codified in the CFR and others not 
codified would be confusing and unfriendly to the public. Additionally, 
the current program rules are overly rigid. The rule will add needed 
flexibility and logically codify the basic rules of the program, 
similar to HUD's other single-family programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis (in addition to HUD's 
general rulemaking authority under 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)) is the definition 
of mortgage in section 201 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1707), which 
definition also applies to section 203 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1709). The 
definition was revised by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 
(Pub. L. 110-289, approved July 30, 2008) to include a mortgages on a 
one-family unit in a multifamily project, and an undivided interest in 
the common areas and facilities which serve the project (this is the 
arrangement that characterizes the large majority of condo projects). 
More recently, the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (Pub. 
L. 114-201, approved July 29, 2016), requires HUD to: Streamline the 
condominium recertification process; issue regulations to amend the 
limitations on commercial space to allow such requests to be processed 
under either HUD or lender review; and to consider factors relating to 
the economy for the locality in which such project is located or 
specific to project, including the total number of family units in the 
project. HUD will be addressing these issues through the regulation.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule will produce cost savings 
of $1 million per year by reducing the paperwork required for 
recertification of an approved project. There are some costs associated 
with qualifying to participate in the Direct Endorsement Lender Review 
and Approval Process (DELRAP). However, HUD anticipates that many 
provisions of the rule, such as single-unit approvals, and flexible 
standards, would reduce or eliminate the compliance costs of the rule.
    Risks: The DELRAP process (which gives underwriting responsibility 
to qualified lenders) and single unit approvals (which allow HUD to 
insure mortgages in unapproved condominium projects) could increase the 
risk of defaults. However, the rule would add safeguards to fully 
mitigate these risks. The participating DELRAP lenders would have to 
meet qualification standards, and HUD would monitor their performance 
on an ongoing basis, and would have authority to take corrective 
actions if a lender's performance is deficient. In addition, single 
unit approvals would require that HUD not insure mortgages in an 
unapproved project if the percentage of such mortgages exceeds an 
amount determined by the Commissioner to be necessary for the 
protection of the insurance fund.
    Timetable:

[[Page 57893]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/28/16  81 FR 66565
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/28/16  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=25&po=0&s=FR-5715&fp=true&ns=true.
    Agency Contact: Elissa Saunders, Director, Office of Single Family 
Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Office of Housing, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 
20410, Phone: 202 708-2121.
    RIN: 2502-AJ30

HUD--OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (FHEO)

Prerule Stage

90.  Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Streamlining and 
Enhancement (FR-6123)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 3601 to 3619
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking invites public 
comment on amendments to HUD's affirmatively furthering fair housing 
(AFFH) regulations. The goal of the regulations is to provide HUD 
program participants with a specific planning approach to assist them 
in meeting their statutory obligation to affirmatively further the 
purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act. HUD is committed to its 
mission of achieving fair housing opportunity for all, regardless of 
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial 
status. fair housing. However, HUD's experience over the three years 
since the newly-specified approach was promulgated demonstrates that it 
is not fulfilling its purpose to be an efficient means for guiding 
meaningful action by program participants. As HUD begins the process of 
developing a proposed rule to amend the existing AFFH regulations, it 
is soliciting public comment on changes that will: (1) Minimize 
regulatory burden while more effectively aiding program participants to 
plan for fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further the 
purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act; (2) create a process 
that is focused primarily on accomplishing positive results, rather 
than on performing analysis of community characteristics; (3) provide 
for greater local control and innovation; (4) seek to encourage actions 
that increase housing choice, including through greater housing supply; 
and (5) more efficiently utilize HUD resources. HUD is also reviewing 
comments submitted in response to the withdrawal of the Local 
Government Assessment Tool and will consider those comments during 
HUD's consideration of potential changes to the AFFH regulations.
    Statement of Need: The stated purpose of the AFFH regulations is to 
provide HUD program participants with a planning approach to assist 
them in meeting their legal obligation to affirmatively further the 
purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act. However, HUD has 
concluded that the current regulations are ineffective. The highly 
prescriptive regulations give participants inadequate autonomy in 
developing fair housing goals as suggested by principles of federalism. 
Additionally, the current regulations do not address the lack of 
adequate housing supply, which has a particular adverse impact on 
protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. Finally, some peer-
reviewed literature indicates that outcomes of policies focused on 
deconcentrating poverty may vary across different ages and demographic 
groups, and suggests that such policies are difficult to implement at 
scale and without disrupting local decision making.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: At this pre-rule stage, HUD expects 
that the neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency 
gains will exceed $100 million.
    Risks: Program participants are reminded that the legal obligation 
to affirmatively further fair housing remains in effect. The withdrawal 
of the Local Government Assessment Tool means that a program 
participant that has not yet submitted an AFH using that device that 
has been accepted by HUD must continue to carry out its duty to 
affirmatively further fair housing by, inter alia, continuing to assess 
fair housing issues as part of planning for use of housing and 
community development block grants in accordance with pre-existing 
requirements. The pre-existing requirements referred to the fair 
housing assessment as an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice 
(AI). HUD places a high priority upon the responsibility of program 
participants to ensure that their AIs serve as effective fair housing 
planning tools.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/16/18  83 FR 40713
Comment Period End..................   10/15/18  .......................
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Krista Mills, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 
Policy, Legislative Initiatives, and Outreach, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, 
451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-6577.
    RIN: 2529-AA97

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Regulatory Plan Fall 2018

Introduction

    The U.S. Department of the Interior (``Interior'' or ``the 
Department'') serves the American public by managing the Nation's 
natural resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, 
and it honors the United States' trust responsibilities or special 
commitments to Federally recognized tribes, American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and affiliated insular areas. This includes managing 
approximately 500 million surface acres of Federal land or about twenty 
percent of the Nation's land area, approximately 700 million subsurface 
acres of Federal mineral estate, and over a billion acres of submerged 
lands on the Outer Continental Shelf.
    Hundreds of millions of people visit Interior-managed lands each 
year in order to engage in camping, hiking, hunting, fishing and 
various other forms of outdoor recreation, which supports local 
communities and their economies. Interior provides access to Federal 
lands and offshore areas for the development of energy, minerals and 
other natural resources, which generates revenue for all levels of 
government, creates jobs and supports the Nation's energy and mineral 
security by promoting the identification and development of domestic 
sources of energy, minerals and the associated infrastructure needs. 
Interior manages these resources under a legal framework that includes

[[Page 57894]]

regulations that ultimately affect the lives and livelihoods of many 
Americans.
    America's lands and natural resources hold tremendous job-creating 
assets. As the steward for a substantial portion of this public trust, 
Interior manages the Nation's lands and natural resources for multiple 
uses. Through this balanced stewardship of public resources, which 
recognizes the value of both conservation and development, Interior 
helps drive job opportunities and economic growth. Interior supports 
$254 billion in estimated economic benefit, while direct grants and 
payments to states, tribes, and local communities provide an estimated 
$10 billion in economic benefit. In 2017, Interior collected 
approximately $9.6 billion from energy, mineral, grazing, and forestry 
activities on behalf of the American people. Interior also supports the 
economy by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome Federal regulatory 
requirements.

Regulatory Reform

    President Trump has made it a priority of his administration to 
reform regulatory requirements that negatively impact our economy while 
maintaining environmental standards. Since day one, Secretary Zinke has 
been committed to regulatory reform. Interior is playing a key role in 
regulatory reform and, pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, 
``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (signed Feb. 24, 2017), has 
established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to help make Interior's 
regulations work better for the American people. In accordance with 
E.O. 13777, as well as E.O. 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (signed Jan. 30, 2017), Interior will 
continue its efforts to identify and repeal, replace or modify 
regulations that are unnecessary, ineffective or that impose costs, 
which are not adequately justified by benefits. Interior will also 
continue to encourage and seek public input on these regulatory reform 
efforts. See 82 FR 28429 (June 22, 2017) and https://www.doi.gov/regulatory-reform.
    In fiscal year 2019, Interior's regulatory agenda will continue to 
reflect a strong commitment to a conservation ethic that also 
recognizes that unnecessary regulations create harmful economic 
consequences on the U.S. economy. In doing this, the Department will 
continue to protect human health and the environment in a responsible 
and cost-effective manner, but in a way that avoids imposing undue 
process or unnecessary economic burdens on the American public.

Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Interior's regulatory and deregulatory priorities focus on:

 Promoting American energy and critical mineral development
 Improving the effectiveness, transparency and timeliness of 
environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure 
projects
 Expanding outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans
 Enhancing conservation stewardship
 Improving management of species and their habitats
 Upholding trust responsibilities to the Federally recognized 
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and addressing the challenges 
of economic development

Promoting American Energy and Critical Mineral Development

    On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed E.O. 13783, ``Promoting 
Energy Independence and Economic Growth,'' which states that ``[i]t is 
in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our 
Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding 
regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, 
constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.'' In accordance 
with E.O. 13783, Interior strives to promote the responsible 
development of Federal and Indian energy resources, while seeking to 
identify and eliminate regulatory requirements that unnecessarily 
burden the development or use of domestic sources of energy beyond the 
degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply 
with the law. In addition to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, 
Interior is committed to improving its management of Federal and Indian 
energy resources by developing more efficient and streamlined 
permitting and review procedures.
    The Department also recognizes that the public lands under its 
stewardship are an important source of the Nation's non-energy mineral 
resources, some of which are critical and strategic, and it is 
committed to ensuring appropriate access to public lands for the 
orderly and efficient development of important mineral resources. On 
December 20, 2017, President Trump signed E.O. 13817, ``A Federal 
Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals,'' 
which prioritizes the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign 
sources for critical mineral supplies, which the U.S. relies upon to 
manufacture everything from batteries and computer chips to the 
equipment used by our military. Within this framework, on December 21, 
2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretary's Order (S.O.) No. 3351, 
``Critical Mineral Independence and Security,'' which directed Interior 
bureaus to identify a list of critical minerals and streamline 
permitting to encourage domestic production of those critical minerals.
    In furtherance of these goals, Interior completed the following 
regulatory actions during fiscal year 2018:
     BLM published the final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas: 
Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands; Rescission of a 2015 
Rule'' (82 FR 61924, Dec. 29, 2017);
     BLM publish the final rule entitled, ``Waste Prevention, 
Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation: Rescission 
or Revision of Certain Requirements'' (83 FR 49184, Sept. 28, 2018); 
and
     BSEE published the final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas and 
Sulphur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Oil and Gas 
Production Safety Systems'' (83 FR 49216, Sept. 28, 2018).
    In fiscal year 2019, Interior will continue to pursue a regulatory 
agenda that seeks to eliminate or minimize regulatory burdens that 
unnecessarily encumber energy and mineral development, and that 
promotes efficient, effective and timely processing of energy and 
mineral permits and other authorizations on Interior-administered lands 
and waters. Some of the regulatory actions that Interior is planning to 
prioritize in fiscal year 2019 include the following:
     BSEE is considering a potential regulatory action to 
revise the final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on 
the Outer Continental Shelf--Blowout Preventer Systems and Well 
Control'' (81 FR 25887, Apr. 29, 2016);
     BOEM is reviewing and considering a potential regulatory 
action related to its Notice to Lessees No. 2016-N01, ``Notice to 
Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas, and Sulfur Leases, and 
Holders of Pipeline Right-of-Way and Right-of-Use and Easement Grants 
in the Outer Continental Shelf'' (Sep. 12, 2016);
     BOEM is reconsidering the provisions of the proposed rule 
entitled, ``Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance,'' (81 FR 
19718, Apr. 5, 2016);
     BSEE and BOEM are reviewing and considering a potential 
regulatory action related to the final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas and 
Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Requirements for 
Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf'' (81 FR 
46478, Jul. 15, 2016); and

[[Page 57895]]

     BLM is reviewing and considering a potential regulatory 
action related to the final rules entitled, ``Onshore Oil and Gas 
Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Site Security'' (81 
FR 81356, Nov. 17, 2016), ``Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and 
Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Measurement of Oil'' (81 FR 81462, Nov. 17, 
2016), and ``Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and 
Gas Leases; Measurement of Gas'' (81 FR 81516, Nov. 17, 2016).

Improving the Efficiency, Transparency and Timeliness of Environmental 
Review and Permitting Processes for Infrastructure Projects

    As outlined in E.O. 13807, ``Establishing Discipline and 
Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for 
Infrastructure Projects'' (signed Aug. 15, 2017), inefficiencies in 
permitting processes, including environmental review processes, can 
delay or prevent infrastructure investments, increase project costs, 
and prevent the American people from experiencing infrastructure 
improvements that would benefit our economy, society and environment. 
With this in mind, E.O. 13807 directs Federal agencies to undertake 
actions in order to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, transparency 
and accountability of their environmental review and permitting 
processes for infrastructure projects.
    The Department is responsible for reviewing and approving permits 
and other authorizations for various public and private infrastructure 
projects on and across Interior-managed lands nationwide, including 
various forms of surface transportation, such as roadways and 
railroads, pipelines, transmission lines, water resource projects, and 
energy production and generation. As such, Interior has an important 
role in the overall objective of improving the Nation's infrastructure.
    In recognition of the important role that it plays in the overall 
efforts to improve and strengthen the Nation's infrastructure, Interior 
has initiated actions in order to identify and address potential 
impediments to its efficient and effective review of infrastructure 
projects. For example, on August 31, 2017, Interior issued S.O. 3355, 
``Streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act Reviews and 
Implementation of Executive Order 13807, `Establishing Discipline and 
Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for 
Infrastructure Projects,' '' in order to enhance, modernize and improve 
the efficiencies of the Department's National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) review processes.
    In order to ensure that the objectives of E.O. 13807 and S.O. 3355 
are effectively implemented, the Department has issued numerous 
guidance documents, including Environmental Review Memorandum No. ERM 
10-11, ``Determining the Applicable Environmental Review Framework for 
Infrastructure Projects'' (August 9, 2018), and the following memoranda 
from the Deputy Secretary of the Interior:
     ``Additional Direction for Implementing Secretary's Order 
3355'' (April 27, 2018);
     ``NEPA Document Clearance Process'' (April 27, 2018);
     ``Compiling Contemporaneous Decision Files'' (April 27, 
2018);
     ``Standardized Intra-Department Procedures Replacing 
Individual Memoranda of Understanding for Bureaus Working as 
Cooperating Agencies'' (June 11, 2018);
     ``Questions and Answers Related to Deputy Secretary 
Memorandums (Memos) dated April 27, 2018'' (June 22, 2018);
     ``Reporting Costs Associated with Developing Environmental 
Impact Statements'' (July 23, 2018); and
     ``Additional Direction for Implementing Secretary's Order 
3355 Regarding Environmental Assessments'' (August 6, 2018).
    In addition, pursuant to S.O. 3358, ``Executive Committee for 
Expedited Permitting'' (signed Oct. 25, 2017), Interior established an 
Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting to help improve the 
Department's permitting processes for energy projects. This will 
involve improving the permitting processes for energy-related projects, 
as well as the harmonization of appurtenant environmental reviews.
    In fiscal year 2019, Interior will pursue a regulatory agenda that 
continues its efforts to improve the Department's permitting processes, 
including interagency coordination and environmental review processes, 
for various types of infrastructure projects. Some of the regulatory 
actions planned for 2019 that will help to support those objectives 
include:
     A Departmental rule that is being developed to update and 
streamline Interior's NEPA processes--``Implementation of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969''; and
     The following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulatory 
actions:
    [cir] ``Conservation of Endangered and Threatened Species; Revision 
of Regulations to Address Interagency Cooperation'';
    [cir] ``Endangered and Threatened Species of Wildlife and Plants; 
Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating 
Critical Habitat'';
    [cir] ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations 
for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Blanket 
Section 4(d) Rule''; and
    [cir] ``Endangered Species Act Section 10 Regulations; Exceptions 
Regarding the Conservation of Endangered and Threatened Species of 
Wildlife and Plants.''

Increasing Outdoor Recreation for All Americans, Enhancing Conservation 
Stewardship, and Improving Management of Species and Their Habitat

    On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed S.O. 3347, ``Conservation 
Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation,'' which established a goal to 
enhance conservation stewardship, increase outdoor recreation, and 
improve the management of game species and their habitat.
    With S.O. 3356, ``Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and 
Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, 
Tribes, and Territories,'' which was signed on September 15, 2017, 
Interior announced continued efforts to enhance conservation 
stewardship; increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all 
Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish; and improve the 
management of game species and their habitats for this generation and 
beyond.
    On April 18, 2018, Secretary Zinke signed S.O. 3365, 
``Establishment of a Senior National Adviser for Recreation,'' and S.O. 
3366, ``Increasing Recreational Opportunities on Lands and Waters 
Managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior.'' Those Secretary's 
Orders provide additional support for Interior's continuing efforts to 
increase access to outdoor recreation on public lands for all American.
    In fiscal year 2019, Interior will pursue a regulatory agenda that 
will help to achieve its goals of expanding opportunities for outdoor 
recreation, including hunting and fishing, for all Americans; enhancing 
conservation stewardship; and improving the management of species and 
their habitat. The regulatory actions that Interior is planning to 
pursue in accordance with the aforementioned goals include:
     A regulatory action that would align Federal regulations 
regarding sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska 
with State of Alaska laws and regulations; and

[[Page 57896]]

     Regulatory actions that would authorize certain 
recreational activities, such as off-road vehicle use, snowmobiling and 
bicycling, within designated areas of certain National Park System 
units.

Upholding Trust Responsibilities to the Federally Recognized American 
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and Addressing the Challenges of 
Economic Development

    The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) are committed to identifying opportunities to promote economic 
growth and the welfare of the people BIA serves by removing barriers to 
the development of energy and other resources in Indian country. In 
fiscal year 2019, Interior will continue to pursue a regulatory agenda 
that supports that commitment.

Aggregate Deregulatory and Significant Regulatory Actions

    Interior made substantial progress in reducing regulatory burdens 
upon the American public. Since the issuance of E.O. 13771 in January 
2017, Interior has finalized deregulatory actions that provide a total 
of over $200 million in annualized costs savings. In fiscal year 2019, 
Interior expects to complete deregulatory actions that will provide 
approximately $50 million in annualized costs savings. Interior does 
not currently expect to publish any significant regulatory actions 
during the next year that will be subject to the offset requirements of 
E.O. 13771. Throughout this document, the terms ``deregulatory action'' 
and ``significant regulatory action'' refer to actions that are subject 
to E.O. 13771.

Bureaus and Offices Within the Department of the Interior

    The following sections give an overview of some of the major 
deregulatory and regulatory priorities of Interior bureaus and offices.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) enhances the quality of life, 
promotes economic opportunity, and protects and improves the trust 
assets of approximately 1.9 million American Indians, Indian tribes, 
and Alaska Natives. BIA also provides quality education opportunities 
to students in Indian schools. BIA maintains a government-to-government 
relationship with the 573 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 American Indians and Indian tribes.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
    In the coming year, BIA's regulatory agenda will continue to focus 
on priorities that ease regulatory burdens on tribes, American Indians 
and Alaska Natives, and others subject to BIA regulations, in 
accordance with E.O. 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs,'' and E.O. 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 
Agenda.'' In accordance with this focus, BIA has identified a provision 
in the Tribal Transportation Program regulation that may be appropriate 
for revision because it imposes data collection and reporting 
requirements that are potentially unnecessary under current law. BIA 
also plans to finalize a regulation that would streamline the right-of-
way process for governmental entities seeking a waiver of the 
requirement to obtain a bond in certain cases. To reduce documentary 
burden, BIA is planning to finalize a rule that would allow for the 
recording in land title records of a memorandum of lease, rather than 
requiring recording of all the lease documents.
    Because many of its existing regulations require compliance with 
the NEPA, BIA is also working on parallel efforts to streamline NEPA 
implementation, in accordance with E.O. 13807, ``Establishing 
Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and 
Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,'' and S.O. 3355, 
``Streamlining National Environmental Policy Act Reviews and 
Implementation of Executive Order 13807.''
    The BIA has one potentially significant regulatory action on its 
agenda that would revise the existing regulations governing off-
reservation trust acquisitions to establish new items that must be 
included in an application and threshold criteria that must be met for 
off-reservation acquisitions before NEPA compliance will be required. 
The rule would also reinstate the 30-day delay for taking land into 
trust following a decision by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary. 
This rule is expected to have de minimis economic impacts and therefore 
likely exempt from the offset requirements under E.O. 13771.

Bureau of Land Management

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 245 million 
acres of public land, known as the National System of Public Lands, 
primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The Bureau 
also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate 
throughout the nation. As stewards, the BLM pursues its multiple-use 
mission, providing opportunities for economic growth through uses such 
as energy development, ranching, mining and logging, as well as outdoor 
recreation activities such as camping, hunting and fishing, while also 
supporting conservation efforts. Public lands provide valuable, 
tangible goods and materials that we use every day to heat our homes, 
build our roads, and feed our families. The BLM strives to be a good 
neighbor in the communities it serves, and is committed to keeping 
public landscapes healthy and productive.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
    BLM has identified the following deregulatory actions for the 
coming year:
     Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reductions 
(RIN 1004-AE58); and
     Revisions to Oil and Gas Site Security, Oil Measurement, 
and Gas Measurement Regulations (RIN 1004-AE59).
    BLM has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771 
planned in 2019.
Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reductions
    The BLM is considering a proposed rule to streamline the royalty 
rate reduction process for non-energy solid leasable minerals. The 
proposed rule would address shortcomings with the existing royalty rate 
reduction regulations for non-energy solid leasable minerals at 43 CFR 
subpart 3513--Waiver, Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum 
Royalties.
    The current regulations establish the royalty rate reduction 
process. However, that process is believed to be unnecessarily 
burdensome and the standards are higher than the applicable statute 
requires for approval of a royalty rate reduction. The proposed rule 
would streamline the royalty rate reduction process and align the BLM 
regulations more closely with the standards of the Mineral Leasing Act 
of 1920.
Revisions to Oil and Gas Site Security, Oil Measurement, and Gas 
Measurement Regulations
    On November 17, 2016, the BLM issued three final rules that updated 
and replaced the BLM's existing Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (Onshore 
Orders) for site security (Onshore Order 3), measurement of oil 
(Onshore Order 4), and measurement of gas (Onshore Order 5). The three 
rules were codified in Title

[[Page 57897]]

43 of the Code of Federal Regulations at subparts 3170 (Onshore Oil and 
Gas Production: General), 3173 (Requirements for Site Security and 
Production Handling), 3174 (Measurement of Oil), and 3175 (Measurement 
of Gas). These rules were prompted by external and internal oversight 
reviews, which found that many of the BLM's production measurement and 
accountability policies were outdated and inconsistently applied. The 
rules addressed some of the Government Accountability Office's concerns 
for areas of high risk with regard to the Department's production 
accountability. The rulemakings also provide a process for approving 
new measurement technology that meets defined performance goals.
    In accordance with E.O. 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and 
Economic Growth'' (March 28, 2017), and S.O. 3349, ``American Energy 
Independence'' (March 29, 2017), the BLM has undertaken a review of the 
rules to determine if certain provisions may have added regulatory 
burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain 
economic growth, and prevent job creation. As a result of this review, 
the BLM is considering a proposed rulemaking action that will propose 
to modify certain provisions of 43 CFR subparts 3170, 3173, 3174, and 
3175 in order to reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome regulatory 
requirements.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is committed to the 
Administration proposition that ``A brighter future depends on energy 
policies that stimulate our economy, ensure our security, and protect 
our health.'' In accordance with E.O. 13783, ``Promoting Energy 
Independence and Economic Growth,'' BOEM is committed to the safe and 
orderly development of our offshore energy and mineral resources, with 
the goal of avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber 
energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. 
BOEM is committed to identifying regulatory and deregulatory 
opportunities and policies that lower costs and stimulate development. 
BOEM continues to strengthen U.S. energy security and energy 
independence. BOEM creates jobs, benefits local communities, and 
strengthens the economy by offering opportunities to develop the 
conventional and renewable energy and mineral resources of the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS).
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
    E.O. 13795, ``Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy 
Strategy,'' specifically addressed certain Interior rules related to 
offshore energy. To implement E.O. 13795, Interior issued S.O. 3350, 
``America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,'' which enhances 
opportunities for energy exploration, leasing, and development on the 
OCS; establishes regulatory certainty for OCS activities; and enhances 
conservation stewardship, thereby providing jobs, energy security, and 
revenue for the American people. In accordance with S.O. 3350, BOEM 
has:
     Reconsidered its financial assurance policies expressed in 
Notice to Lessees No. 2016-N01 related to offshore oil and gas 
activities. BOEM is currently working on a proposed rule to protect 
taxpayers from unnecessary liabilities while minimizing unnecessary 
regulatory burdens on industry.
     Ceased activities to promulgate the ``Offshore Air Quality 
Control, Reporting, and Compliance'' proposed rule, which was published 
on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19717). Following extensive review, BOEM is now 
completing a more limited final rule that will implement BOEM's 
statutory responsibility to ensure that OCS operations conducted under 
a BOEM approved plan are in compliance with statutory mandates.
     Reviewed, in consultation with the Bureau of Safety and 
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the final rule ``Oil and Gas and 
Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Requirements for 
Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf,'' which was 
published on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46478), for consistency with the 
policy set forth in section 2 of E.O. 13795. As a result of that 
review, BOEM and BSEE are considering deregulatory options for the 
rule.
    BOEM has no economically significant regulatory actions planned for 
fiscal year 2019.
Streamlining Renewable Energy Regulations
    BOEM's renewable energy program has matured over the past 8 years 
as it has conducted 7 auctions and issued 13 commercial leases for 
offshore wind. Through that experience and stakeholder engagement, BOEM 
has identified deregulatory opportunities for reforming, streamlining, 
and clarifying its renewable energy regulations. This proposed 
rulemaking contains reforms that are intended to facilitate offshore 
renewable energy development, while not decreasing environmental 
safeguards. The rulemaking advances, and is consistent with, the 
Administration's deregulatory and energy security policies.
Compliance With Executive and Secretary's Orders, and Statutory 
Mandates
    BOEM will continue to be responsive to the various regulatory 
reform initiatives, including identifying and acting upon any 
regulations, orders, guidance, policies or any similar actions that 
could potentially burden the development or utilization of domestically 
produced energy sources.

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

    The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's (BSEE) mission 
is to promote offshore conservation, development and production of 
offshore energy resources while ensuring that offshore operations are 
safe and environmentally responsible. BSEE's priorities in fulfillment 
of its mission are to: (1) Promote and regulate offshore energy 
development using the full range of authorities, policies, and tools to 
ensure safety and environmental responsibility; and (2) build and 
sustain the organizational, technical, and intellectual capacity within 
and across BSEE's key functions in order to keep pace with offshore 
industry technology improvements, innovate in economically sound 
regulation and enforcement, and reduce risk through appropriate risk 
assessment and regulatory and enforcement actions.
    Consistent with the direction in E.O. 13783, ``Promoting Energy 
Independence and Economic Growth,'' E.O. 13795, ``Implementing an 
America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,'' as well as E.O. 13771, 
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' BSEE has 
reviewed and will continue to review its existing regulations to 
determine whether they may unnecessarily burden the development or use 
of domestically produced energy resources, constrain economic growth, 
or prevent job creation. BSEE is a well-positioned partner ready to 
help all stakeholders maintain the Nation's position as a global energy 
leader and foster energy independence for the benefit of the American 
people, while ensuring that offshore oil and gas activity in the Outer 
Continental Shelf is performed in a safe and environmentally 
responsible manner.
    In the coming year, BSEE plans to finalize two deregulatory actions 
and three regulatory actions. BSEE has no

[[Page 57898]]

significant regulatory actions that are expected to be subject to E.O. 
13771 planned for the coming year.
Deregulatory Actions
    BSEE has identified the following deregulatory actions under E.O. 
13771 as high priorities for fiscal year 2019:
Well Control and Blowout Prevention Systems Rule Revision
    In the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon incident in 
2010, 14 external organizations made a total of 424 recommendations, 
which were expressed through 26 separate reports, in order to improve 
the safety of offshore oil and gas operations. BSEE subsequently issued 
four rules that addressed those recommendations, which included the 
April 2016 final rule entitled, ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on 
the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well 
Control'' (81 FR 25888) (``2016 Well Control Rule'' or ``2016 rule''). 
The 2016 Well Control Rule consolidated the equipment and operational 
requirements for well control into one part of BSEE's regulations; 
enhanced blowout preventer (BOP), well design, and modified well-
control requirements; and incorporated certain industry technical 
standards.
    Consistent with the policy direction of E.O.s 13771 and 13795 and 
S.O. 3350, BSEE undertook a review of the 2016 Well Control Rule with a 
view toward encouraging energy exploration and production and reducing 
unnecessary regulatory burdens while ensuring that any such activity is 
safe and environmentally responsible. After thoroughly reexamining the 
2016 Well Control Rule, on May 11, 2018, BSEE published a proposed rule 
entitled, ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental 
Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Revisions'' (83 FR 
22128) (``proposed rule''), to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage 
job-creating development, while still ensuring safe and environmentally 
responsible offshore oil and gas operations.
    In developing the proposed rule, BSEE carefully analyzed all 342 
provisions of the 2016 Well Control Rule, and identified 59 of those 
provisions--or less than 18% of the 2016 Rule--as appropriate for 
revision or deletion.\1\ During this process, BSEE also compared each 
of the proposed changes to the 424 recommendations arising from the 26 
separate reports developed in the wake of and in response to the 
Deepwater Horizon incident, and determined that none of the proposed 
changes contradicts or ignores any of those recommendations, or would 
alter any provision of the 2016 Well Control Rule in a way that would 
make the result inconsistent with any of the recommendations. Among the 
potential changes included in the proposed rule are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A provision represents a requirement of the operator that 
may be comprised of a single citation or multiple citations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revising the accumulator system requirements and 
accumulator bottle requirements for Blowout Preventers (BOPs) to better 
align with industry standards, particularly API Standard 53--Blowout 
Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells;
     Revising the requirement to shut in platforms when a lift 
boat approaches;
     Revising the BOP control station and pod testing schedules 
to ensure component functionality without inadvertently requiring 
duplicative testing;
     Removing certain prescriptive requirements for real-time 
monitoring; and
     Replacing the required use of a BSEE-approved verification 
of organization (BAVO) with the use of an independent third-party for 
certain certifications and verifications of BOP systems and components, 
and removing the requirement to have a BAVO submit a Mechanical 
Integrity Assessment report for the BOP stack and system.
Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf Rule
    BSEE has reviewed, in consultation with BOEM, the final rule ``Oil 
and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--
Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental 
Shelf,'' published on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46478), for consistency with 
the policy set forth in section 2 of E.O. 13795. As a result of that 
review, BSEE and BOEM are considering deregulatory options for the 
rule.
    In addition to the deregulatory actions previously identified, BSEE 
will continue to review the remainder of its regulations to identify 
other requirements that could be modified to increase efficiency, 
streamline processes, reduce industry burden, and maximize energy 
resources while ensuring offshore operations are performed in a safe 
and environmentally sustainable manner.
Regulatory Actions
    BSEE has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771 
planned for fiscal year 2019. However, BSEE plans to complete the 
following three, non-significant rulemakings before the end of that 
fiscal year that are either statutorily required or are minor in 
nature:
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; 2019 Inflation Adjustments for Civil 
Penalties
    This rulemaking would adjust the level of civil monetary penalties 
contained in BSEE's regulations that are pursuant to the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (FCPIA) requires Federal 
agencies to make annual adjustments for inflation to civil penalties 
contained in its regulations.
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act; 2019 Inflation Adjustments 
for Civil Penalties
    To provide for a more cohesive and streamlined approach for making 
annual inflation adjustments to BSEE's FOGRMA-related civil penalties 
under the FCPIA, this rulemaking would remove the civil monetary 
amounts contained in BSEE's regulations and replace them with a cross-
reference to the Office of Natural Resource Revenue's (ONRR) FOGRMA 
civil penalty regulations. Pursuant to the FCPIA, ONRR makes inflation 
adjustments to its FOGRMA civil penalties on an annual basis pursuant 
to the FCPIA.
Privacy Act Regulations; Exemption for the Investigations Case 
Management System
    Interior will amend its regulations to exempt certain records from 
particular provisions of the Privacy Act, which BSEE maintains to 
conduct and document incident investigations related to operations on 
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

    The 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 for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 
is as follows:
    By January 15, 2019, ONRR will draft and publish in the Federal 
Register a final rule (1012-AA24) to adjust for inflation ONRR's daily 
maximum civil penalty rates, to be effective for calendar year 2019. 
This adjustment is required

[[Page 57899]]

by law (28 U.S.C. 2461) and OMB Guidance.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

    The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) 
was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSMRE has two principal functions--the regulation 
of surface coal mining and reclamation operations, and the reclamation 
and restoration of abandoned coal mine lands. In enacting SMCRA, 
Congress directed OSMRE to ``strike a balance between protection of the 
environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for 
coal as an essential source of energy.'' OSMRE seeks to develop and 
maintain a regulatory program that provides a safe, cost-effective, and 
environmentally sound supply of coal to help support the Nation's 
economy and local communities.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
    OSMRE is continuing to review additional actions to reduce burdens 
on energy production, including, for example, reviewing the state 
program amendment process to reduce the time it takes to formally amend 
an approved regulatory program.
    OSMRE has no significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 
2019.

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. The FWS also provides opportunities for Americans to enjoy the 
outdoors and our shared natural heritage.
    The FWS fulfills its responsibilities through a diverse array of 
programs that:
     Protect and recover endangered and threatened species;
     Monitor and manage migratory birds;
     Enforce Federal wildlife laws and regulate international 
trade;
     Conserve and restore wildlife habitat such as wetlands;
     Help foreign governments conserve wildlife through 
international conservation efforts;
     Distribute Federal funds to States, territories, and 
tribes for fish and wildlife conservation projects; and
     Manage the more than 150 million acres of land and water 
from the Caribbean to the remote Pacific in the National Wildlife 
Refuge System, which protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their 
habitats, and allows the public to engage in outdoor recreational 
activities.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
    During the next year, the regulatory priorities of FWS will 
include:
Regulations Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
    The FWS, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 
will propose regulatory actions to improve the administration of the 
ESA, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. The FWS and NMFS 
are developing regulatory reforms that will create efficiencies and 
streamline the ESA consultation process, as well as the processes for 
listing and delisting threatened and endangered species. In addition, 
FWS is developing a regulatory action that would remove the blanket 
section 4(d) rule applying to species listed as threatened. This change 
will align FWS's process with NMFS and result in regulations and 
prohibitions tailored to the conservation needs of specific species.
    The FWS is also considering a rulemaking action that would improve 
and clarify its regulations that implement section 10 of the ESA and 
pertain to the issuance of permits for the take of threatened and 
endangered species.
    The FWS also plans to take multiple regulatory actions under the 
ESA in order to prevent the extinction and facilitate the recovery of 
both domestic and foreign animal and plant species. Accordingly, FWS 
will add species to, remove species from, and reclassify species on the 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and designate 
critical habitat, in accordance with the National Listing Workplan and 
3-Year Downlisting and Delisting Workplan. These Workplans enable FWS 
to prioritize its workload based on the needs of species, while 
providing greater clarity and predictability about the timing of ESA 
classification determinations to State wildlife agencies, nonprofit 
organizations, and various other diverse stakeholders and partners. The 
goals of the Workplans are to encourage proactive conservation so that 
Federal protections are not needed in the first place and to remove 
regulatory burdens once a listed species' status is improved or the 
species is recovered.
Regulations Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
    In carrying out its responsibility to manage migratory bird 
populations, FWS plans to 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. FWS is considering and plans to propose a regulatory 
action to revise and improve the administration of the MBTA.
Regulations To Administer the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)
    In carrying out its statutory responsibility to provide wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities on NWRS lands, FWS issues an 
annual rule to update the hunting and fishing regulations on specific 
refuges.
Regulations To Carry Out the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration and 
Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Acts (Acts)
    Under the Acts, FWS distributes annual apportionments to States 
from trust funds derived from excise tax revenues and fuel taxes. FWS 
continues to work closely with State fish and wildlife agencies on how 
to use these funds to implement conservation projects. To strengthen 
its partnership with State conservation organizations, FWS is working 
on several rules to update and clarify its regulations. Planned 
regulatory revisions will help to reflect several new decisions agreed 
upon by State conservation organizations.
Regulations To Carry Out the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Lacey Act
    In accordance with section 3(a) of E.O. 13609, ``Promoting 
International Regulatory Cooperation,'' FWS will update its CITES 
regulations to incorporate provisions resulting from the 16th and 17th 
Conference of the Parties to CITES. The revisions will help FWS more 
effectively promote species conservation and help U.S. importers and 
exporters of wildlife products understand how to conduct lawful 
international trade.
    The FWS has no significant regulatory actions that are subject to 
E.O. 13771 planned for fiscal year 2019.

National Park Service

    The National Park Service (NPS) preserves the natural and cultural 
resources and values within 417 units of the National Park System 
encompassing nearly 84 million acres of lands and waters for the 
enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. 
The NPS also cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of 
resource conservation and outdoor

[[Page 57900]]

recreation throughout the United States and the world.
    The NPS intends to issue a number of deregulatory actions and no 
significant regulatory actions during the upcoming year.
Deregulatory Actions
    The NPS will undertake deregulatory actions under E.O. 13771, 
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' that will 
reduce regulatory costs. Several of these actions also comply with 
section 6 of E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review,'' because they will remove or modify outdated, unnecessarily 
complicated and burdensome regulations.
    The NPS intends to:
     Issue a final rule to align sport hunting regulations in 
national preserves in Alaska with State of Alaska regulations and to 
enhance consistency with harvest regulations on surrounding non-federal 
lands and waters.
     Issue a proposed rule that would revise existing 
regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to streamline requirements for museums and 
Federal agencies. The rule would describe the NAGPRA process in 
accessible language with clear time parameters, eliminate ambiguity, 
clarify terms, and improve efficiency.
NPS Response to Secretarial Order 3366: Increasing Recreational 
Opportunities on Lands and Waters Managed by the U.S. Department of the 
Interior
    Enabling regulations are considered deregulatory under guidance to 
E.O. 13771. The NPS will undertake several enabling regulatory actions 
in the coming year that will provide new opportunities for the public 
to enjoy and experience certain areas within the National Park System. 
These include regulations authorizing:
     Off-road vehicle use at Cape Lookout National Seashore 
(final rule), Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (final rule), Big 
Cypress National Preserve (proposed rule), and Fire Island National 
Seashore (proposed rule);
     Bicycling at Pea Ridge National Military Park (final 
rule), Hot Springs National Park (proposed rule), Buffalo National 
River (proposed rule), and Whiskeytown National Recreation Area 
(proposed rule);
     Launching of non-motorized vessels from Colonial National 
Historic Park (proposed rule);
     Snowmobiles within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 
(proposed rule);
     Personal watercraft within Gulf Islands National Seashore 
(proposed rule); and
     Recreational flying within Death Valley National Park 
(proposed rule).
    These actions will allow the public to use NPS-administered lands 
and waters in a manner that protects the resources and values of the 
National Park System. As outdoor recreation technology, uses, and 
patterns evolve, the NPS regulations and management policies will also 
need to evolve. The NPS is working to address emerging forms of 
recreation such as electric bicycles (e-bikes).
Other Priority Rulemakings of Particular Interest to Small Business
    The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule to implement the Visitor 
Experience Improvements Authority (VEIA) given to the NPS by Congress 
in Title VII of the National Park Service Centennial Act. This 
authority allows the NPS to award and administer commercial services 
contracts (and related professional services contracts) for the 
operation and expansion of commercial visitor facilities and visitor 
services programs in units of the National Park System.

Bureau of Reclamation

    The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and 
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and 
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To 
accomplish this mission, we employ management, engineering, and science 
to achieve effective and environmentally sensitive solutions. 
Reclamation projects provide: Irrigation water service, municipal and 
industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water quality 
improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife enhancement, 
outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river regulation and 
control, system optimization, and related uses. In addition, we 
continue to provide increased security at our facilities.
Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions
    The Bureau of Reclamation intends to publish no deregulatory or 
significant regulatory actions in fiscal year 2019.

Other Regulatory Actions of the Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Damages and Restoration--Hazardous Substances (RIN: 
1090-AB17)
    The existing regulation (43 CFR 11) provides procedures that 
Natural Resource Trustees may use to evaluate the need for and means of 
restoring, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of public natural 
resources that are injured or destroyed as a result of releases of 
hazardous substances. The Department is considering a potential 
rulemaking action that would provide an opportunity for others (Federal 
agencies, States, Indian Tribes, and interested public) to provide 
input on areas of the existing regulations that could be revised to 
increase effectiveness, efficiency, and restoration of the injured 
resources.
Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (RIN: 
1090-AB18)
    The Department is developing regulations to streamline its National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process by increasing the number of 
categorical exclusions and updating its NEPA regulations.

DOI--ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT (ASLM)

Proposed Rule Stage

91. Revisions to the Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the 
Arctic Outer Continental Shelf

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 to 1356a; 33 U.S.C. 2701
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 250; 30 CFR 254; 30 CFR 550.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would revise specific provisions of 
the regulations published in the final Arctic Exploratory Drilling 
Rule, 81 FR 46478 (July 15, 2016), which established a regulatory 
framework for exploratory drilling and related operations within the 
Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas on the Outer Continental 
Shelf of Alaska. The rulemaking for this RIN replaces the Bureau of 
Safety and Environmental Enforcement's RIN 1014-AA40.
    Timetable:

[[Page 57901]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Bryce Barlan, Regulatory Analyst, Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 45600 
Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166, Phone: 703 787-1126, Email: 
[email protected].
    Deanna Meyer-Pietruszka, Chief, OPRA, Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 
20240, Phone: 202 208-6352, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1082-AA01
BILLING CODE: 4334-63-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)--FALL 2018

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The solemn duty of the Department of Justice is to uphold the 
Constitution and laws of the United States so that all Americans can 
live in peace and security. As the chief law enforcement agency of the 
United States government, the Department of Justice's fundamental 
mission is to protect people by enforcing the rule of law. To fulfill 
this mission, the Department is devoting resources and utilizing the 
legal authorities available to combat violent crime and terrorism, 
prosecute drug traffickers, and enforce immigration laws. Because the 
Department of Justice is primarily a law enforcement agency and not a 
regulatory agency, it carries out its principal investigative, 
prosecutorial, and other enforcement activities through means other 
than the regulatory process.
    This year, the Department of Justice continues to revise and 
improve its procedures for evaluating new regulatory actions and 
analyzing the costs that would be imposed. Executive Order 13771 (E.O. 
13771), titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs,'' 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017), requires an agency, unless 
prohibited by law, that for every one new regulation issued, at least 
two prior regulations be identified for elimination. In furtherance of 
this requirement, section 2(c) of E.O. 13771 requires the new 
incremental costs associated with new regulations, to the extent 
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs 
associated with at least two prior regulations. Section 3(a) states 
that starting with fiscal year 2018, ``the head of each agency shall 
identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the 
offsetting regulations described in section 2(c) of [E.O. 13771], and 
provide the agency's best approximation of the totals costs or savings 
associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.''
    In addition to the new cost analyses being conducted pursuant to 
E.O. 13771, the Department is actively carrying out the provisions of 
E.O. 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' 82 FR 12285 
(Mar. 1, 2017). The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force continues 
actively working to evaluate existing Department regulatory actions and 
to make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or 
modification in order to reduce unnecessary burdens.
    The regulatory priorities of the Department include initiatives in 
the areas of federal grant programs, criminal law enforcement, 
immigration, and civil rights. These initiatives are summarized below. 
In addition, several other components of the Department carry out 
important responsibilities through the regulatory process. Although 
their regulatory efforts are not separately discussed in this overview 
of the regulatory priorities, those components have key roles in 
implementing the Department's anti-terrorism and law enforcement 
priorities.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

    ATF issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to the 
manufacture and commerce of firearms and explosives. ATF's mission and 
regulations are designed, among other objectives, (1) to curb illegal 
traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms and explosives, and (2) to 
assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in 
reducing crime and violence. ATF will continue, as a priority during 
fiscal year 2019, to seek modifications to its regulations governing 
commerce in firearms and explosives to fulfill these objectives.
    As its key regulatory initiative, ATF plans to amend its 
regulations to clarify that ``bump fire'' stocks, slide-fire devices, 
and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type 
devices) are ``machineguns'' as defined by the National Firearms Act of 
1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, because such devices allow a 
shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing 
cycle with a single pull of the trigger. This is one of the 
Department's Regulatory Plan entries.
    In addition, ATF plans to update its regulations requiring 
notification of stored explosive materials to require annual reporting 
(RIN 1140-AA51). This regulatory action is intended to increase safety 
for emergency first responders and the public.
    ATF also plans to issue regulations to finalize the current interim 
rules implementing the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act (RIN 1140-
AA00). The Department is also planning to finalize a proposed rule to 
codify regulations (27 CFR part 771) governing the procedure and 
practice for proposed denial of applications for explosives licenses or 
permits and proposed revocation of such licenses and permits (RIN 1140-
AA38). As proposed, this rule is a regulatory action that clarifies the 
administrative hearing processes for explosives licenses and permits. 
This rule promotes open government and disclosure of ATF's procedures 
and practices for administrative actions involving explosive licensees 
or permittees.
    ATF also has begun a rulemaking process that amends 27 CFR part 447 
to update the terminology in the ATF regulations based on similar 
terminology amendments made by the Department of State on the U.S. 
Munitions List in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and 
the Department of Commerce on the Commerce Control List in the Export 
Administration Regulations (RIN 1140-AA49).

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

    DEA is the primary agency responsible for coordinating the drug law 
enforcement activities of the United States and also assists in the 
implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. DEA 
implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug 
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended, collectively 
referred to as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA's mission is to 
enforce the CSA and its regulations and bring to the criminal and civil 
justice system those organizations and individuals involved in the 
growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances and 
listed chemicals appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the 
United States. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to 
prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances 
and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the 
legitimate medical,

[[Page 57902]]

scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States.
    Pursuant to its statutory authority, DEA plans to update its 
regulations to implement provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act of 2016 (RIN 1117-AB45) relating to the partial filling of 
prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances. This is one of the 
Department's Regulatory Plan initiatives.
    In fiscal year 2019, DEA anticipates issuing a rulemaking action 
addressing suspicious orders of controlled substances (RIN 1117-AB47) . 
This proposed rule would remedy the inadequacies of the existing 
reporting requirements by defining the term ``suspicious order'' and 
specifying the procedures registrants must follow upon receiving such 
orders. In addition, DEA plans to publish six deregulatory actions 
(RINs 1117-AB37, 1117-AB40, 1117-AB43, 1117-AB44, 1117-AB45, and 1117-
AB46). Consistent with E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, DEA is continuing to 
review existing regulations to identify those that are outdated, 
unnecessary, or ineffective. DEA will solicit public comments during 
such reviews, as appropriate, to engage with the affected DEA 
registrant community and members of the public.

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)

    EOIR's primary mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by 
fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the 
Nation's immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney 
General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate 
reviews, and administrative hearings. The immigration judges adjudicate 
approximately 150,000 cases each year to determine whether aliens 
should be ordered removed from the United States or should be granted 
some form of protection or relief from removal. The Board of 
Immigration Appeals (BIA) has jurisdiction over appeals from the 
decisions of immigration judges, as well as other matters. Accordingly, 
the Attorney General has a continued role in the conduct of immigration 
proceedings, including removal proceedings and custody determinations 
regarding the detention of aliens pending completion of removal 
proceedings. The Attorney General also is responsible for civil 
litigation and criminal prosecutions relating to the immigration laws.
    In particular, EOIR intends to propose revisions to the existing 
asylum regulations, pursuant to the Attorney General's statutory 
authority, to ensure the faithful and efficient execution of asylum 
processes (RIN 1125-AA87). This is one of the Department's Regulatory 
Plan initiatives.
    In other pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to 
revise and update the regulations relating to immigration proceedings 
to increase efficiencies and productivity, while also safeguarding due 
process. In particular, EOIR is working to expand upon its Public 
Notice of June 25, 2018, by publishing a proposed rule regarding its 
new EOIR Case and Appeals System, which provides for greatly expanded 
electronic filing and calendaring for cases before EOIR's immigration 
courts and BIA (RIN 1125-AA81).
    In addition, EOIR is planning to publish a regulation to finalize 
an interim final rule from 2005 regarding background and security 
investigation checks (RIN 1125-AA44), and is working to finalize a 
jurisdiction and venue rule that will provide clarification regarding 
an immigration judge's authority to conduct proceedings, how venue is 
determined, and what circuit court law EOIR adjudicators will apply 
(RIN 1125-AA52). In particular, EOIR is developing mechanisms in this 
rule intended to streamline certain venue changes to achieve cost 
savings to the agency and increase due process to the parties. In 
addition, in response to Executive Order 13563, the Department is 
retrospectively reviewing EOIR's regulations to eliminate regulations 
that unnecessarily duplicate Department of Homeland Security 
regulations and update outdated references to the pre-2003 immigration 
system (RIN 1125-AA71). The Department also continues to work toward 
rulemaking that will assist in identifying and sanctioning those 
defraud the system itself and the individuals who appear before EOIR 
(RIN 1125-AA82).

Civil Rights (CRT)

    CRT regulations implement Federal laws relating to discrimination 
in employment-related immigration practices, the coordination of 
enforcement of non-discrimination in federally assisted programs, and 
Federal laws relating to disability discrimination.
    Pursuant to the regulatory reform provisions of Executive Orders 
13771 and 13777, CRT is undertaking a review of its guidance documents 
to determine whether any of those documents may be outdated, 
inconsistent, or duplicative, and to ensure compliance with the 
Attorney General's November 16, 2017 Memorandum entitled Prohibition on 
Improper Guidance Documents.

Office of Justice Programs (OJP)

    OJP provides innovative leadership to federal, state, local, and 
tribal justice systems by disseminating state-of-the-art knowledge and 
practices and providing financial assistance for the implementation of 
crime fighting strategies. OJP will continue to review its existing 
regulations to streamline them, where possible.
    OJP published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the OJJDP Formula 
Grant Program on August 8, 2016, and in early 2017 published a final 
rule addressing some of those provisions. OJP anticipates publishing a 
second final OJJDP Formula Grant Program rule to remove certain 
provisions of the regulations that are no longer legally supported 
(deleting text that unnecessarily repeats statutory provisions or has 
been rendered obsolete by statutory changes) and to make technical 
corrections. After publishing the second final rule, OJJDP anticipates 
publishing a third final rule to finalize the remaining substantive 
aspects of the proposed rule, and to further streamline and improve the 
existing regulation by providing or revising definitions for clarity, 
and by deleting text that addresses matters already (or better) 
addressed in other places (e.g., other rules or the program 
solicitation).

Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

    BOP issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to its 
mission of protecting society by confining offenders in the controlled 
environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, 
humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work 
and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in 
becoming law-abiding citizens. During the next 12 months, BOP will 
continue its ongoing efforts to develop regulatory actions aimed at: 
(1) Streamlining regulations, eliminating unnecessary language and 
improving readability; (2) improving inmate disciplinary procedures and 
sanctions, improving safety in facilities through the use of less-than-
lethal force instead of traditional weapons; and (3) providing 
effective literacy programming which serves both general and 
specialized inmate needs.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for protecting 
and defending the United States against terrorist and foreign 
intelligence threats, upholding and enforcing the criminal laws of the

[[Page 57903]]

United States, and providing leadership and criminal justice services 
to Federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners. 
Only in limited contexts does the FBI rely on rulemaking. For example, 
the FBI is currently drafting a rule that establishes the criteria for 
use by a designated entity(ies) in making a determination of fitness as 
described under the Child Protection Improvements Act (CPIA), 34 United 
States Code Sec.  40102, Public Law 115-141. The CPIA requires that the 
Attorney General shall, by rule, establish the criteria for use by 
designated entities in making a determination of fitness described in 
subsection (b)(4) of the Act concerning whether the provider has been 
convicted of, or is under pending indictment for, a crime that bears 
upon the provider's fitness to have responsibility for the safety and 
well- being of children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities 
and shall convey that determination to the qualified entity. Such 
criteria shall be based on the criteria established pursuant to section 
108(a)(3)(G)(i) of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end 
the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (34 U.S.C. 40102 note) 
and section 658H of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858f).

DOJ--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES (ATF)

Final Rule Stage

92. Bump-Stock-Type Devices

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.; 26 U.S.C. 5841 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478; 27 CFR 479.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Justice is issuing a rulemaking that 
would interpret the statutory definition of machinegun in the National 
Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether 
certain devices, commonly known as bump-fire stocks, fall within that 
definition.
    Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify that the 
statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., 
bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that 
firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, 
such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms 
Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 
447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are 
machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a 
shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing 
cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices 
convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by 
functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that 
harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner 
that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional 
physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney General has express authority 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and regulations necessary 
to carry out the provisions of Chapter 44, Title 18, United States 
Code. The detailed legal analysis supporting the definition of 
machinegun proposed for adoption in this rule is expressed in the 
abstract for the rule itself.
    Alternatives: There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed 
rule that would allow ATF to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Absent 
congressional action, the only feasible alternative is to maintain the 
status quo.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule will be ``economically 
significant,'' that is, 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. ATF 
estimates the total cost of this rule at $320.9 million over 10 years. 
The total 7% discount cost is estimated at $234.1 million, and the 
discounted costs would be $39.6 million and $39.2 million annualized at 
3% and 7% respectively. The estimate includes costs to the public for 
loss of property ($102,470,977); costs of forgone future production and 
sales ($213,031,753); and costs for disposal ($5,448,330). Unquantified 
costs include lost employment, notification to bump-stock-type device 
owners of the need to destroy the bump-stock-type devices, and loss of 
future usage by the owners of bump-stock-type devices. ATF did not 
calculate any cost savings for this final rule. It is anticipated that 
the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year 
with the highest costs). This cost includes the first-year cost to 
destroy or modify all existing bump-stock-type devices, including 
unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time.
    This rule provides significant non-quantifiable benefits to public 
safety. Among other things, it clarifies that a bump-stock-type device 
is a machinegun and limits access to them; prevents usage of bump-
stock-type devices for criminal purposes; reduces casualties in mass 
shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting; and helps protect first 
responders by preventing shooters from using a device that allows them 
to shoot a semiautomatic firearm automatically.
    Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be 
threatened by the widespread availability to the public of bump-stock-
devices.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/26/17  82 FR 60929
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/25/18  .......................
NPRM................................   03/29/18  83 FR 13442
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/27/18  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Vivian Chu, Regulations Attorney, Department of 
Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New 
York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, Phone: 202 648-7070.
    RIN: 1140-AA52

DOJ--DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA)

Proposed Rule Stage

93. Implementation of the Provision of the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act of 2016 Relating to the Partial Filling of Prescriptions 
for Schedule II Controlled Substances

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 821; 21 U.S.C. 829; 21 U.S.C. 831; 21 
U.S.C. 871; Pub. L. 114-198, sec. 702
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1306.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On July 22, 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016 became law. One section of the CARA amended 
the Controlled Substances Act to allow a pharmacist, if certain 
conditions are met, to partially fill a prescription for a schedule II 
controlled substance when requested by the prescribing practitioner or 
the patient. The Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing to amend

[[Page 57904]]

its regulations to implement this statutory change.
    Statement of Need: This rule is needed to implement the partial 
fill provisions of the CARA. The CARA amended the CSA to allow for the 
partial filling of prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances 
under certain conditions. Specifically, the CARA amended 21 U.S.C. 829 
by adding new subsection (f), which allows a pharmacist to partially 
fill a prescription for a schedule II controlled substance where 
requested by the prescribing practitioner or the patient. However, the 
CARA does not state how the prescribing practitioner should indicate 
that a prescription for a schedule II controlled substance be partially 
filled, nor how a pharmacist should record the partial filling of such 
a prescription. This rule proposes prescribing and recordkeeping 
requirements to provide clear direction to practitioners and patients.
    The changes in this rule are also important in helping address the 
ongoing opioid epidemic, by allowing practitioners and patients to 
limit the amount of schedule II opioids left unused after a course of 
treatment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: While the CARA laid out the framework for 
partial filling of prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances, 
there were a number of issues left unresolved. Congress granted the DEA 
authority to fill in any gaps in the regulatory scheme not addressed by 
the statute itself; the CARA provides that partial filling of schedule 
II prescriptions is permitted if the prescription is written and filled 
in accordance with, among other things, regulations issued by DEA.
    Additionally, under 21 U.S.C. 871(b), the Attorney General may 
promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures deemed 
necessary for the efficient execution of the Attorney General's 
functions, including general enforcement of the CSA. Consistent with 21 
U.S.C. 871(a), the Attorney General has delegated that authority to the 
DEA.
    Alternatives: This rule would only amend the DEA's regulations to 
the extent necessary to fully implement the partial fill provisions of 
the CARA, and would be in addition to the existing regulations of 21 
CFR 1306.13. Consistent with 21 U.S.C. 829(f)(3), any circumstances 
allowing a lawful partial fill prior to the implementation of the 
statute would still be allowed under the new rules.
    The proposed rule will include provisions aimed at giving patients 
and practitioners a simple and low-cost way to request and record 
partial fills that also ensures accountability and prevents diversion 
of controlled substances. The DEA will request comment on the proposed 
rule and will consider all alternatives. Special consideration will be 
given to flexible approaches that reduce burdens and maintain freedom 
of choice for the public.
    Some of the provisions in this proposed rule merely restate the 
general requirements of the CARA for partial filling of prescriptions 
for schedule II controlled substances. Since these provisions are 
mandated by Congress, the DEA is obligated to incorporate them into its 
regulations, and has no discretion to consider alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In order to ensure accountability 
and maintain the closed system of distribution, the proposed rule will 
likely impose certain costs on DEA registrants. Current projections 
indicate the primary cost would be the additional time needed to be 
spent by pharmacies to fill the remaining portions of partially filled 
prescriptions. Whereas before the CARA, a pharmacy would fill all of a 
schedule II prescription during a single visit by a patient, if the 
practitioner or the patient requests a partial fill, the pharmacy will 
only fill part of the prescription on the patient's first visit, and 
will need to fill the remainder of the prescription if the patient 
returns for a second visit. The DEA currently estimates the total cost 
of the proposed rule to be approximately $12 million annually.
    The provisions of this rule may also require prescribers to take 
additional time writing prescriptions, since they would need to include 
partial fill instructions on the prescriptions, and pharmacists to take 
additional time tracking the status of partially filled prescriptions, 
in order to ensure that the proper amount of medication is dispensed if 
a patient returns to fill the remainder of a prescription, but the DEA 
believes this additional time required would be minimal, and that the 
cost of such additional time would be minimal.
    There is also the potential for benefits to patients and society as 
a result of this proposed rule. Patients could request a partial fill 
of a prescription if they are unlikely to use the full amount, and save 
money by not paying for pills they would not use. Furthermore, reducing 
the quantity of leftover schedule II controlled substances would reduce 
the risk of diversion and the risk of improper disposal and associated 
environmental impact. This is an enabling rule because it allows for 
partial fills of prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances, 
which was previously prohibited.
    Risks: If the DEA did not promulgate this rule, patients and 
practitioners would face uncertainty in complying with the requirements 
for partial fills of prescriptions for schedule II controlled 
substances. While the statute does directly address many aspects of the 
partial fill process, there are a number of details left out, which 
must be supplied by regulation. Without such clarifying regulations, 
few practitioners would take advantage of the partial fill provisions 
for fear of violating federal law, thus frustrating the original 
purposes of the CARA.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/.
    Agency Contact: Kathy L. Federico, Acting Section Chief, Regulatory 
Drafting and Support Section/Diversion Control Division, Department of 
Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, VA 22152, Phone: 202 598-2596, Fax: 202 307-9536, Email: 
www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov.
    RIN: 1117-AB45

DOJ--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR)

Proposed Rule Stage

94.  Procedures for Asylum

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1208.3; 8 CFR 1208.13; 8 CFR 1208.16.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will amend the regulations related to asylum, 
including bars to asylum eligibility, the form of an alien's 
application for asylum, and the reconsideration of discretionary 
denials of such applications.
    Statement of Need: The rule seeks to better promote the Attorney 
General's application of law through his discretionary authorities that 
statute and existing regulation provide. The Attorney General seeks to 
clarify and expand upon certain provisions related to asylum.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration and Nationality Act

[[Page 57905]]

provides the Attorney General with the broad and general authority to 
establish, by regulation, bases for findings of ineligibility for 
asylum INA 208(b)(2)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C).
    Alternatives: The alternative to this rulemaking would be to 
continue to leave immigration court and BIA adjudicators without clear 
rules by which they should evaluate applications for asylum and to 
further burden the backlogged immigration courts with incomplete 
applications.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs 
associated with the DOJ portion of the rule. EOIR will benefit from the 
rule's promulgation by reducing resources spent processing incomplete 
or invalid asylum claims.
    Risks: EOIR does not anticipate any risks associated with the DOJ 
portion of this rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Department 
of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg 
Pike, Suite 2616, Falls Church, VA 20530, Phone: 703 305-0289, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1125-AA87

BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

2018 Regulatory Plan

Executive Summary: Safe and Family-Sustaining Jobs

    The Department of Labor's mission is to foster, promote, and 
develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of 
the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities 
for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. 
The Department works to hold employers accountable for their legal 
obligations to their employees, while recognizing that the Department 
also has a duty to help employers understand and comply with the many 
laws and regulations affecting their workplaces.
    The Secretary of Labor has made protecting America's employees and 
promoting job creation his top priorities. Under his leadership, the 
Department is committed to fully and fairly enforcing the laws under 
its jurisdiction. The vast majority of employers work hard to keep 
their workplaces safe and to comply with wage and pension laws. 
Acknowledging this, the Department is working to provide compliance 
assistance, to give employers the knowledge and tools they need to 
comply with their obligations in these areas. Compliance with the law 
is, however, mandatory. Employers that do not comply with the law will 
continue to be subject to enforcement.
    During the past year, the Department took action to help millions 
employed by small businesses gain access to quality, affordable health 
coverage through its Association Health Plan reform. This reform allows 
employers, including small businesses, and working owners--many of whom 
are facing much higher premiums and fewer coverage options as a result 
of Obamacare--a greater ability to join together and gain many of the 
regulatory advantages enjoyed by large employers, and thereby offer 
better health coverage options to their employees.
    In the coming year, the Department will build upon its previous 
work in providing for workforce protections, protecting the jobs of 
American workers, and helping the workforce add more family-sustaining 
jobs.

The Secretary of Labor's Regulatory Plan for Accomplishing These 
Objectives

    In general, the Department will work to assist employees and 
employers to meet their needs in a helpful manner, with a minimum of 
rulemaking.
    The Department will roll back regulations that harm American 
workers and families--but we will do so while respecting the principles 
and institutions that make us who we are as Americans.
    Where regulatory actions are necessary, they will be accomplished 
in a thoughtful and careful manner. The Department seeks to achieve 
needed employee protections while limiting the burdens regulations 
place on employers.
    The Department's regulatory actions will provide American employers 
with certainty about workforce rules. The Department's regulatory plan 
will make employers' obligations under current law clear, while 
respecting the rule of law. Where Congress is silent, the Department 
does not have the authority to write the law.
    The proposals that follow are common-sense approaches in areas 
needing regulatory attention, presenting a balanced plan for protecting 
employees, aiding them in the acquisition of needed skills, and helping 
the regulated community to do its part.
    The Department's Regulatory Agenda is consistent with the 
requirements of Section 1 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' 82 FR 9339 (January 30, 
2017) recognizes that ``it is essential to manage costs associated with 
the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply 
with Federal Regulations.''

The Department's Regulatory Priorities

    The Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) 
works to protect the benefit plans of workers, retirees, and their 
families.
    On August 31, 2018, President Trump issued an executive order 
establishing the policy of the Federal Government to expand access to 
workplace retirement plans. Pursuant to the executive order, EBSA will 
consider ways to permit employees at different businesses to 
participate in a single workplace plan. EBSA intends to consider ways 
to allow small businesses to sponsor Association Retirement Plans for 
their employees. EBSA also intends to consider ways to expand access to 
workplace plans for sole proprietors, sometimes called working owners. 
To implement these steps, EBSA is considering issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking that would clarify when separate businesses can 
elect to jointly sponsor an Association Retirement Plan.
    EBSA, in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury and the 
Department of Health and Human Services will, consistent with Executive 
Order 13813, consider proposing regulations or revising guidance 
consistent with law and sound policy to increase the usability of 
health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), to expand employers' ability 
to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in 
conjunction with nongroup coverage.
    The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) administers numerous laws that 
establish the minimum standards for wages and working conditions in the 
United States. WHD will propose an updated salary level for the 
exemption of executive, administrative, and professional employees for 
overtime purposes. In developing the NPRM, the Department has been 
informed by the comments previously received in response to its Request 
for Information.
    WHD will also propose an update to its regulations concerning joint 
employment, i.e., those situations in which a worker is considered an

[[Page 57906]]

employee of two or more employers jointly.
    Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay 
covered employees at least one and one half times their regular rate of 
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. WHD will 
propose to amend its regulations to clarify, update, and define regular 
rate requirements under the FLSA.
    The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) ensures 
that federal contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action and 
do not, among other things, discriminate on the basis of race, color, 
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, 
disability, or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP plans to update its 
regulations to comply with current law regarding protections for 
religious organizations.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversee a 
wide range of standards that are designed to reduce occupational 
deaths, injuries, and illnesses. OSHA is committed to the establishment 
of clear, common-sense standards to help accomplish this. The OSHA 
items discussed below are deregulatory in nature, in that they reduce 
burden, while maintaining needed worker protections.
    OSHA continues its work to protect workers from occupational 
exposures to beryllium. Following the publication of a revised 
beryllium standard in January 2017, OSHA received evidence that 
exposure in the shipyards and construction is limited to a few 
operations and that requiring the ancillary provisions broadly may not 
improve worker protection and may be redundant with overlapping 
protections in other standards. Accordingly, OSHA sought comment on, 
among other things, whether existing standards covering abrasive 
blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in shipyards, and welding 
in shipyards provide adequate protection for workers engaged in these 
operations. The agency is reviewing the public comments and formulating 
a final rule.
    OSHA issued a proposal on July 30, 2018, to revise provisions of 
the May 12, 2016, Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses 
final rule. OSHA reviewed the May 2016 final rule as part of its 
regulatory reform efforts and proposed changes intended to reduce 
unnecessary burdens while maintaining worker protections. In 
particular, the proposed rule addresses concerns about the release of 
private information in the electronic submission of injury and illness 
reports by employers. Although OSHA stated its intention not to publish 
personally identifiable information (PII) included on Forms 300 and 301 
in the May 2016 final rule, OSHA has now determined that it cannot 
guarantee the non-release of private information. It has now proposed 
requiring submission of only the Form 300A summary data, which does not 
include any private information, not the individual, case-specific data 
recorded in Forms 300 and 301. If finalized, the rule would allow OSHA 
to continue to use the summary data to make targeted inspections, while 
better protecting worker privacy.
    OSHA also continues work on its Standards Improvements Projects 
(SIPs), with the plan to finalize SIP IV next. These actions are 
intended to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent 
safety and health standards. OSHA published three earlier final 
standards to remove unnecessary provisions, reducing costs or paperwork 
burden on affected employers, while maintaining needed worker 
protections.
    Finally, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 
administers federal job training and worker dislocation adjustment 
programs, federal grants to states for public employment service 
programs, and unemployment insurance benefits. ETA and WHD are amending 
regulations regarding the H-2A non-immigrant visa program. This action 
will include necessary technical improvements to the existing H-2A 
regulations, modernizing and streamlining the functionality of the 
program.

DOL--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION (WHD)

Proposed Rule Stage

95. Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, 
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 541.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department intends to issue a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) to determine the appropriate salary level for 
exemption of executive, administrative and professional employees. In 
developing the NPRM, the Department will be informed by the comments 
received in response to its Request for Information.
    Statement of Need: WHD is reviewing the regulations at 29 CFR 541, 
which implement the exemption of bona fide executive, administrative, 
and professional employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum 
wage and overtime requirements. The Department's NPRM will propose an 
updated salary level for exemption and seek the public's view on the 
salary level and related issues.
    Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are authorized by section 
13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1).
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed in considering any 
proposed revisions to the current regulations. The public will be 
invited to provide comments on any proposed revisions and possible 
alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department will prepare 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits associated with the 
proposed rule.
    Risks: This action does not affect public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   07/26/17  82 FR 34616
RFI Comment Period End..............   09/25/17  .......................
NPRM................................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Melissa Smith, Director, Regulations, Legislation 
and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
    RIN: 1235-AA20

DOL--WHD

96. Regular and Basic Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 548; 29 CFR 778.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department 
will propose to amend 29 CFR parts 548 and 778, to clarify, update, and 
define basic rate and regular rate requirements under sections 7(e) and 
7(g)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
    Statement of Need: The majority of 29 CFR part 778 was promulgated 
more

[[Page 57907]]

than sixty years ago. The Department believes that changes in the 21st 
century workplace are not reflected in its current regulatory 
framework. While the Department has periodically updated various 
sections of part 778 over the past several decades, they have not 
addressed the changes in compensation practices and relevant laws. The 
Department is interested in ensuring that its regulations provide 
appropriate guidance to employers offering these more modern forms of 
compensation and benefits regarding their inclusion in, or exclusion 
from, the regular rate. Clarifying this issue will ensure that 
employers have the flexibility to provide such compensation and 
benefits to their employees, thereby providing employers more 
flexibility in the compensation and benefits packages they offer to 
employees. Similarly, the Department believes that the proposed changes 
will facilitate compliance with the FLSA and lessen litigation 
regarding the regular rate. Additionally, the Department has not 
updated part 548 since 1967.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Part 778 constitutes the official 
interpretation of the Department with respect to the meaning and 
application of the maximum hours and overtime compensation requirements 
contained in section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 207, including 
calculation of the regular rate. Additionally, part 548 sets out the 
requirements for authorized basic rates under section 7(g)(3) of the 
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 207(g).
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed in considering any 
proposed revisions to the current regulations. The public will be 
invited to provide comments on any proposed revisions and possible 
alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department will prepare 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits associated with the 
proposed rule.
    Risks: This action does not affect public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Melissa Smith, Director, Regulations, Legislation 
and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
    RIN: 1235-AA24

DOL--WHD

97.  Joint Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 791.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department 
will propose to clarify the contours of the joint employment 
relationship to assist the regulated community in complying with the 
Fair Labor Standards Act.
    Statement of Need: The majority of 29 CFR part 791 was promulgated 
sixty years ago. The Department believes that changes in the 21st 
century workplace are not reflected in its current regulatory 
framework. Consistent with the Administration's priorities to enact 
administrative reforms and provide clarity to enhance compliance, the 
Department is considering changes to its regulations concerning joint 
employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act. These proposed changes 
are intended to provide clarity to the regulated community and thereby 
enhance compliance. The Department believes the proposed changes will 
help to provide more uniform standards nationwide.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is authorized by sections 
3(d), (e), and (g) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203(d), 
(e), and (g). Part 791 constitutes the official interpretation of the 
Department with respect to joint employment.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed in considering any 
proposed revisions to the current regulations. The public will be 
invited to provide comments on any proposed revisions and possible 
alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department will prepare 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits associated with the 
proposed rule.
    Risks: This action does not affect public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Melissa Smith, Director, Regulations, Legislation 
and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
    RIN: 1235-AA26

DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)

Proposed Rule Stage

98.  Labor Certification Process for Temporary Agricultural 
Employment in the United States (H-2A Workers)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1188
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 655, subpart B; 29 CFR 501.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The United States Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment 
and Training Administration and Wage and Hour Division are amending 
regulations regarding the H-2A non-immigrant visa program at 20 CFR 
part 655, subpart B. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will 
include necessary technical improvements to the existing H-2A 
regulations which will modernize and streamline the overall function of 
the program. The NPRM will also make necessary legal changes to 
modernize the regulation that have arisen since the current H-2A 
regulation was published in 2010.
    Statement of Need: DOL has identified necessary areas of the 
regulation that should be modernized and streamlined so that the agency 
can more effectively carry out its mandate to protect the wages and 
working conditions of U.S. workers while also allowing the program to 
operate efficiently. DOL has also identified legal issues with the 
current regulation that must be addressed.
    Summary of Legal Basis: ETA is undertaking this rulemaking pursuant 
to its authority under section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. In addition, courts have issued decisions since the publication of 
the current regulation that have presented legal issues with the 
regulation that must be addressed.

[[Page 57908]]

    Alternatives: Alternatives will be provided and open to public 
comment in the NPRM.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimates of the costs and 
benefits are still under development.
    Risks: This action does not affect the public health, safety, or 
the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: William W. Thompson, II, Administrator, Office of 
Foreign Labor Certification, Department of Labor, Employment and 
Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Box #12-200, 
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 513-7350.
    RIN: 1205-AB89

DOL--EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (EBSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

99.  Health Reimbursement Arrangements and Other Account-Based 
Group Health Plans

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: Public Law 111-148
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This regulatory action is being proposed in response to 
Executive Order 13813, Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition 
Across the United States, and would increase the usability of HRAs, to 
expand employers' ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to 
allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.
    Statement of Need: This regulatory action is being proposed in 
response to Executive Order 13813, ``Promoting Healthcare Choice and 
Competition Across the United States.'' The Executive Order directs the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury 
(collectively, the Departments) to consider proposing regulations or 
revising guidance consistent with law and sound policy to increase the 
usability of health-reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), to expand 
employers' ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs 
to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Current joint final regulation issued by 
the Departments prohibited HRA integration with individual market 
policies. See 26 CFR 54.9815.2711, 29 CFR 2590.715-2711, and 45 CFR 
147.126. The Departments are considering proposing regulations that 
would permit integration and expand usability of HRAs in certain 
circumstances.
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Amy J. Turner, Director, Office of Health Plan 
Standards and Compliance Assistance, Department of Labor, Employee 
Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP 
Building, Room N-5653, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-8335, Fax: 
202 219-1942.
    RIN: 1210-AB87

DOL--EBSA

100.  Definition of an ``Employer'' Under Section 3(5) of 
ERISA--Association Retirement Plans and Other Multiple Employer Plans

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1002(2), 1002(5) and 1135
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This regulatory action would establish criteria under 
section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for 
purposes of being an ``employer'' able to establish and maintain an 
employee pension benefit plan (as defined in section 3(2) of ERISA) 
that is a multiple employer retirement savings plan (other than a 
multiemployer plan defined in section 3(37) of ERISA).
    Statement of Need: Many Americans do not have access to workplace 
retirement plans, including 401(k)s. Small businesses are particularly 
unlikely to offer workplace retirement plans because of high costs and 
regulatory burdens. Regulatory changes are needed to make it easier and 
less expensive for small businesses to offer workplace retirement plans 
to their employees. Executive Order 13847, 83 FR 45321, directed the 
Secretary of Labor to examine policies that would clarify and expand 
the circumstances under which U.S. employers, especially small and mid-
sized businesses, may sponsor or participate in a multiple employer 
plan or MEP as a workplace retirement savings option offered to their 
employees, subject to appropriate safeguards.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The proposal would clarify the statutory 
definition of employer in section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002. This definition includes 
direct employers and any other person acting indirectly in the interest 
of the employer in relation to an employee benefit plan, including a 
group or association of employers acting for an employer in such 
capacity. Section 505 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1135, provides that the 
Secretary of Labor may prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary 
or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.
    Alternatives: The Department intends to conduct an assessment of 
costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives to the planned regulation, which are identified by the 
public, in order to conclude why the planned regulatory action is 
preferable to the identified potential alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department intends to conduct an 
assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the regulatory action 
together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs 
and benefits.
    Risks: This regulatory action is intended to reduce the risk that 
America's workers will enter retirement with inadequate financial 
resources. Too many American workers, including one-third of those in 
the private-sector, have no access to workplace retirement plans, 
burdening them with concerns about their financial futures. Polling 
shows that nearly half of all Americans are concerned they will not 
have enough money to live on during retirement.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57909]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Jeffrey J. Turner, Deputy Director, Office of 
Regulations and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits 
Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Room 
N-5655, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-8500, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1210-AB88

DOL--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

Final Rule Stage

101. Standards Improvement Project IV

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: OSHA's Standards Improvement Projects (SIPs) are intended 
to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety 
and health standards. The Agency has published three earlier final 
standards to remove unnecessary provisions (63 FR 33450, 70 FR 1111 and 
76 FR 33590), thus reducing costs or paperwork burden on affected 
employers. This latest project identified revisions to existing 
standards in OSHA's recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and 
construction standards, with most of the revisions to its construction 
standards. OSHA also proposed to remove from its standards the 
requirements that employers include an employee's social security 
number (SSN) on exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and other 
records in order to protect employee privacy and prevent identity 
fraud.
    Statement of Need: The Agency has proposed a fourth rule that 
identified unnecessary or duplicative provisions or paperwork 
requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: OSHA is conducting Phase IV of the 
Standards Improvement Project (SIP-IV) in response to the President's 
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review (76 
FR 38210).
    Alternatives: The main alternative OSHA considered for all of the 
proposed changes contained in the SIP-IV rulemaking was retaining the 
existing regulatory language, i.e., retaining the status quo. In each 
instance, OSHA has concluded that the benefits of the proposed 
regulatory change outweigh the costs of those changes. In a few of the 
items, such as the proposed changes to the decompression requirements 
applicable to employees working in compressed air environments, OSHA 
has requested public comment on feasible alternatives to the Agency's 
proposal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: OSHA has estimated that, at 3 
percent discount rate over 10 years, there are net annual cost savings 
of $6.1 million per year for this final rule; at a discount rate of 7 
percent there are net annual cost savings at $6.1 million per year. 
When the Department uses a perpetual time horizon, the annualized cost 
savings of the final rule is $6.1 million with 7 percent discounting.
    Risks: SIP rulemakings do not address new significant risks or 
estimate benefits and economic impacts of reducing such risks. Overall, 
SIP rulemakings are reasonably necessary under the OSH Act because they 
provide cost savings, or eliminate unnecessary requirements.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   12/06/12  77 FR 72781
RFI Comment Period End..............   02/04/13  .......................
NPRM................................   10/04/16  81 FR 68504
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   12/02/16  81 FR 86987
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   01/04/17  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Dean McKenzie, Director, Directorate of 
Construction, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Room N-3468, 
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2020, Fax: 202 693-1689, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AC67

DOL--OSHA

102. Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657; 29 U.S.C. 673
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: OSHA published a proposed rule on July 30, 2018, to 
remove provisions to the Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and 
Illnesses final rule, 81 FR 29624 (May 12, 2016). OSHA proposed to 
amend its recordkeeping regulation to remove the requirement to 
electronically submit to OSHA information from the OSHA Form 300 (Log 
of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and OSHA Form 301 (Injury and 
Illness Incident Report) for establishments with 250 or more employees 
which are required to routinely keep injury and illness records. Under 
the proposed rule, these establishments would be required to 
electronically submit only information from the OSHA Form 300A (Summary 
of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). OSHA also proposed to add the 
Employer Identification Number (EIN) to the data collection to increase 
the likelihood that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) would be able 
to match OSHA-collected data to BLS Survey of Occupational Injury and 
Illness (SOII) data and potentially reduce the burden on employers who 
are required to report injury and illness data both to OSHA (for the 
electronic recordkeeping requirement) and to BLS (for SOII). OSHA is 
reviewing comments and will publish a final rule in June 2019.
    Statement of Need: The preamble to the May 2016 final rule pointed 
to publication of the collected data as a method to improve workplace 
safety and health through the rule's requirements. OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the risk of disclosure of the personally 
identifiable information (PII) on the OSHA Form 300 and 301, the cost 
to OSHA of collection and using the information, and the reporting 
burden on employers are unjustified given the uncertain benefits of 
collecting the information.
    Summary of Legal Basis: OSHA is issuing this proposed rule pursuant 
to authority expressly granted by sections 8 and 24 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act (the OSH Act or Act) (29 U.S.C. 657 and 673).
    Alternatives: The alternative for the proposed changes contained in 
the NPRM is to retain the existing regulatory language, i.e., retaining 
the status quo. OSHA has proposed that the benefits of the proposed 
regulatory change outweigh the costs of those changes. OSHA has 
requested public comment on feasible alternatives to the Agency's 
proposal.

[[Page 57910]]

    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The removal of the case specific 
requirement reduces costs. OSHA estimates that the rule will have net 
economic cost savings of $8.75 million per year. The Agency believes 
that the loss in annual benefits, while unquantified, are significantly 
less than the annual cost savings, hence there are positive net 
benefits to this proposed rule.
    Risks: This rulemaking does not address new significant risks or 
estimate benefits and economic impacts of reducing such risks. Overall, 
this rulemaking is reasonably necessary under the OSH Act because it 
provides cost savings, or eliminates unnecessary requirements.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/03/18  83 FR 36494
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/28/18  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Agency Contact: Amanda Edens, Director, Directorate of Technical 
Support and Emergency Management, Department of Labor, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP 
Building, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2300, Fax: 
202 693-1644, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AD17

DOL--OSHA

103.  Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium 
Compounds in Construction and Shipyard Sectors

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On January 9, 2017, OSHA published its final rule 
Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in the 
Federal Register (82 FR 2470). OSHA concluded that employees exposed to 
beryllium and beryllium compounds at the preceding permissible exposure 
limits (PELs) were at significant risk of material impairment of 
health, specifically chronic beryllium disease and lung cancer. OSHA 
also concluded that the new 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL of 
[micro]g/m\3\ reduced this significant risk to the maximum extent 
feasible. After a review of the comments received and a review of the 
applicability of existing OSHA standards, OSHA proposed to revoke 
ancillary provisions applicable to the construction and shipyard 
sectors on June 28, 2018 (82 FR 29182), but to retain the new lower PEL 
of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and the STEL of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\ for those 
sectors. OSHA has evidence that beryllium exposure in these sectors is 
limited to the following operations: Abrasive blasting in construction, 
abrasive blasting in shipyards, and welding in shipyards. OSHA has a 
number of standards already specifically applicable to these 
operations, including ventilation (29 CFR 1926.57) and mechanical paint 
removers (29 CFR 1915.34). Because OSHA determined that there is 
significant risk of material impairment of health at the new lower PEL 
of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, the Agency continues to believe that it is 
necessary to protect workers exposed at this level. However, OSHA is 
now reconsidering the need for ancillary provisions in the construction 
and shipyards sectors, and is currently reviewing comments received in 
response to the proposal to finalize the rulemaking.
    Statement of Need: The Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) proposed to revoke the ancillary provisions for 
the construction and the shipyard sectors, which OSHA adopted on 
January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2470), but retain the new lower permissible 
exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and the short term exposure 
limit (STEL) of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\ for each sector. OSHA will not 
enforce the January 9, 2017, shipyard and construction standards 
without further notice while this new rulemaking is underway.
    OSHA has determined that there is significant risk of material 
impairment of health at the new lower PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, the 
Agency continues to believe that it is necessary to protect workers 
exposed at this level. However, OSHA has evidence that beryllium 
exposure in these sectors is limited to the following operations: 
Abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in shipyards, and 
welding in shipyards. OSHA has a number of standards already applicable 
to these operations. Based on a review of the comments received and a 
review of the applicability of existing OSHA standards, OSHA is now 
reconsidering the need for ancillary provisions in the construction and 
shipyards sectors, and is currently reviewing comments received in 
response to the proposal to finalize the rulemaking.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657.
    Alternatives: OSHA has several potential options. The first is to 
retain the original standards promulgated in 2017 for construction and 
shipyards, including all ancillary provisions. Alternatively, OSHA is 
evaluating whether there is benefit to retaining certain ancillary 
provisions that were proposed for rescission.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: OSHA preliminarily estimated that 
rescinding the ancillary provisions will result in cost savings to 
shipyard and construction establishments. For construction, cost 
savings are $8.8 million (7% discounting) and $8.6 million (3% 
discounting). For shipyards, cost savings are $3.5 million (7% 
discounting) and $3.4 million (3% discounting). OSHA has preliminarily 
concluded that there are limited to no foregone benefits (i.e., reduced 
number of cases of Chronic Beryllium Disease) as a result of revoking 
the ancillary provisions of the beryllium final standards for 
construction and shipyards.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM (Construction in Shipyards)       06/27/17  82 FR 29182
 Published as 1218-AB76.
NPRM (Construction in Shipyards)       08/28/17  .......................
 Comment Period End.
Final Rule..........................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards 
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Room N-3718, 
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1218-AB76
    RIN: 1218-AD21

BILLING CODE 4510-04-P


[[Page 57911]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Introduction: Department Overview

    DOT has statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. 
For example, DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, 
railroad, motor vehicle, commercial space, transit, and pipeline 
transportation areas. The Department also regulates aviation consumer 
and economic issues, and provides financial assistance and writes the 
necessary implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports, 
mass transit, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor 
transportation and vehicle safety. Finally, DOT has responsibility for 
developing policies that implement a wide range of regulations that 
govern programs such as acquisition and grants management, access for 
people with disabilities, environmental protection, energy 
conservation, information technology, occupational safety and health, 
property asset management, seismic safety, security, and the use of 
aircraft and vehicles. The Department carries out its responsibilities 
through the Office of the Secretary (OST) and the following operating 
administrations (OAs): Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA); Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA); Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA); Maritime Administration (MARAD); National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration; (PHMSA); and St. Lawrence Seaway 
Development Corporation (SLSDC).

The Department's Regulatory Philosophy and Initiatives

    The Department's highest priority is safety. To achieve our safety 
goals responsibly and in accordance with principles of good governance, 
we embrace a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes transparency, 
stakeholder engagement, and regulatory restraint. Our goal is to allow 
the public to understand how we make decisions, which necessarily 
includes being transparent in the way we measure the risks, costs, and 
benefits of engaging in--or deciding not to engage in--a particular 
regulatory action. It is our policy to provide an opportunity for 
public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above 
all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations 
should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested 
stakeholder.
     At DOT, transparency and stakeholder engagement take a 
number of different forms. For example, we publish a monthly report on 
our website that provides a summary and the status for all significant 
rulemakings that DOT currently has pending or has issued recently 
(https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings). This report provides the public with easy access to 
information about the Department's regulatory activities that can be 
used to locate other publicly-available information in the Department's 
regulatory docket at www.regulations.gov, or in the Federal Register.
     We also seek public input through direct engagement. For 
example, we published a request asking the public to help us identify 
obstacles to infrastructure projects, Transportation Infrastructure: 
Notice of Review of Policy, Guidance, and Regulation, 82 FR 26734 (June 
8, 2017). In response, we received more than 200 comments proposing 
more than 1,000 ideas. We have reviewed these comments and are working 
to implement ideas that streamline approval processes and guide 
investment in infrastructure. We also published another notice 
requesting the public to help us identify rules that are good 
candidates for repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification, or 
other deregulatory action, 82 FR 45750 (October 2, 2017). We received 
over 2,800 comments in response and are currently undertaking a 
comprehensive review of these comments. Finally, DOT has a long history 
of partnering with stakeholders to develop recommendations and 
consensus standards through advisory committees. Some committees meet 
regularly to provide advice, while others are convened on an ad hoc 
basis to address specific needs. Each OA, as well as OST, has at least 
one standing advisory committee.
    The Department's regulatory philosophy also embraces the notion 
that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize 
consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes 
in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These 
processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are 
periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised to ensure that 
they continue to meet the needs for which they were originally 
designed, and that they remain cost-effective and cost-justified.
    For example, DOT regularly makes a conscientious effort to review 
its rules in accordance with the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979), Executive Order (E.O.) 
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and section 610 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department follows a repeating 10-year 
plan for the review of existing regulations. Information on the results 
of these reviews is included in the Unified Agenda.
    In addition, through three new Executive Orders, President Trump 
directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations and other 
agency actions. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive 
Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. 
Under section 2(a) of the Executive Order, unless prohibited by law, 
whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice 
and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify 
at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, 
President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, enforcing the Regulatory 
Reform Agenda. Under this Executive Order, each agency must establish a 
Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations, 
and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or 
modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 
13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring 
agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance 
documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially 
burden the development or use of domestically produced energy 
resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and 
nuclear energy resources.
    In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department 
formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders, 
which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations, 
and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified. 
As a result of the RRTF's work, since January 2017, the Department has 
issued deregulatory actions that reduce regulatory costs on the public 
by at least $882 million (in net present value cost savings). Even when 
the costs of significant regulatory actions are factored in, the 
Department's deregulatory actions in FY2018 will still result in over 
$500 million in net cost savings (in net present value). With the 
RRTF's assistance, the Department has achieved these cost savings in a 
manner that is fully consistent with enhancing safety. For example, in 
March 2018, the FAA promulgated a rule titled Rotorcraft Pilot 
Compartment View,

[[Page 57912]]

which will reduce the number of tests for nighttime operations, after 
the Agency carefully considered the safety data and determined the 
tests were unnecessary.
    The Department has also significantly increased the number of 
deregulatory actions it is pursuing. Today, DOT is pursuing over 120 
deregulatory rulemakings, up from just 16 in the fall of 2016.
    The RRTF continues to conduct monthly reviews across all OAs to 
identify appropriate deregulatory actions. The RRTF also works to 
ensure that any new regulatory action is rigorously vetted and non-
regulatory alternatives are considered. Further information on the RRTF 
can be found online at: https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/regulatory-reform-task-force-report. The priorities identified below 
reflect the RRTF's work to implement the Department's focus on reducing 
burdens and improving the effectiveness of all regulations.

The Department's Regulatory Priorities

    Four fundamental principles--safety, innovation, enabling 
investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory 
burdens--are our top priorities. These priorities are grounded in our 
national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety, 
innovation, and economic growth. To accomplish our regulatory goals, we 
must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and 
innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary 
restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; we 
must remain focused on managing safety risks and be sure that we do not 
regress from the successes already achieved. Accordingly, the 
regulatory plan laid out below reflects a careful balance that 
emphasizes the Department's priority in fostering innovation while at 
the same time meeting the challenges of maintaining a safe and 
reliable, transportation system.
    Safety. The success of our national transportation system requires 
us to remain focused on safety as our highest priority. Our regulatory 
plan reflects our commitment to safety through a balanced regulatory 
approach. Our goals are to deliver safety more efficiently and at a 
lower cost to the public by looking to market-driven solutions first.
    Innovation. Every mode of transportation is affected by 
transformative technology. Whether we are talking about automation, 
unmanned vehicles, or other emerging technologies, we are looking 
forward to new and promising frontiers that will change the way we move 
on the ground, in water, through the air, and into space. Our 
regulatory plan reflects the Administration's commitment to fostering 
innovation by lifting barriers to entry and enabling innovative and 
exciting new uses of transportation technology.
    Enabling investment in infrastructure. The safe and efficient 
movement of goods and passengers requires us not just to maintain, but 
to improve our national transportation infrastructure. But that cannot 
happen without changes to the way we plan, fund, and approve projects. 
Accordingly, our Regulatory Plan prioritizes regulatory action that 
streamlines the approval process and facilitates more efficient 
investment in infrastructure. To maintain global leadership and foster 
economic growth, this must be one of our highest priorities.
    Reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Finally, our Regulatory 
Plan reflects our commitment to reducing unnecessary regulatory 
burdens. Our priority rules include some deregulatory actions that we 
identified after a comprehensive review of all of the Department's 
regulations. The Plan also reflects our policy of thoroughly 
considering non-regulatory solutions before taking regulatory action. 
When regulatory intervention is necessary, however, it is our policy to 
rely data-driven and risk-based analysis to craft the most effective 
and least burdensome solution to the problem.
    This Regulatory Plan identifies the 10 pending rulemakings that 
reflect the Department's commitment to safety, innovation, 
infrastructure, and reducing burdens. For example:
     FAA will focus on regulatory activity to enable, safely 
and efficiently, the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 
into the National Airspace System (NAS), and to enable expanded 
commercial space activities.
     NHTSA will focus on maintaining and advancing safety while 
reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation, including the 
development of autonomous vehicles, and updating regulations on fuel 
efficiency.
     FRA will continue to focus on providing industry members 
regulatory relief through a rulemaking that allows for alternative 
compliance with FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for the 
operation of Tier III passenger equipment.
     FTA will continue to focus on its statutorily-mandated 
efforts to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety 
Program to improve the safety of public transportation systems.
     PHMSA will focus on pipeline safety as well as the 
movement of hazardous materials across multiple modes of 
transportation.
    At the same time, all OAs are prioritizing their regulatory and 
deregulatory actions accordance with Executive Orders 13771 and 13563, 
to make sure they are providing the highest level of safety while 
eliminating outmoded and ineffective regulations and streamlining other 
existing regulations in an effort to promote economic growth, 
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Since each OA has its 
own area of focus, we summarize the regulatory priorities of each 
below.

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

    OST oversees the regulatory process for the Department. OST 
implements the Department's regulatory policies and procedures and is 
responsible for ensuring the involvement of senior officials in 
regulatory decision making. Through the Office of the General Counsel, 
OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department complies with 
the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 
Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review), Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 13777 (Enforcing the 
Regulatory Reform Agenda), Executive Order 13873 (Promoting Energy 
Independence and Economic Growth), DOT's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures, and other legal and policy requirements affecting 
rulemaking. In addition, OST has the lead role in matters concerning 
aviation economic rules, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and rules 
that affect multiple elements of the Department.
    OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with 
regulatory requirements and process for personnel throughout the 
Department. OST also plays an instrumental role in the Department's 
efforts to improve our economic analyses; risk assessments; regulatory 
flexibility analyses; other related analyses; retrospective reviews of 
rules; and data quality, including peer reviews. The Office of the 
General Counsel is the lead office that works with the Office of 
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) to get Administration approval to move forward with 
significant rules.
    OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to OMB's 
intergovernmental review of other agencies' significant rulemaking

[[Page 57913]]

documents and to Administration and congressional proposals that 
concern the regulatory process. The Office of the General Counsel works 
closely with representatives of other agencies, OMB, the White House, 
and congressional staff to provide information on how various proposals 
would affect the ability of the Department to perform its safety, 
infrastructure, and other missions.
     In Fiscal Year 2019, the Department will issue an NPRM 
proposing to establish the applicable regulatory standard for waivers 
from the Buy America requirement on the basis that a product or item is 
not manufactured in the United States meeting the applicable Buy 
America requirement. This rulemaking will streamline and coordinate 
aspects of the Buy America process across the Department.
    In addition, OST will continue its efforts to help coordinate the 
activities of several OAs that advance various departmental efforts 
that support the Administration's initiatives on promoting safety, 
enabling innovation, investing in infrastructure, and reducing 
regulatory burdens. OST will also continue to provide significant 
support to the RRTF's efforts to implement the Department's regulatory 
reform policies.

Federal Aviation Administration

    FAA is charged with safely and efficiently operating and 
maintaining the most complex aviation system in the world. Destination 
2025, an FAA initiative that captures the agency's vision of 
transforming the Nation's aviation system by 2025, has proven to be an 
effective tool for pushing the agency to think about longer-term 
aspirations; FAA has established a vision that defines the agency's 
priorities for the next five years.
    During Fiscal Year 2019, FAA's regulatory priorities will be to 
enable transformative UAS and commercial space technologies by 
publishing two notices of proposed rulemaking (Updates to Clarify and 
Streamline Commercial Space Transportation Regulations, 2120-AL17 and 
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2120-AL31), 
publishing an interim final rule on UAS marking (External Marking 
Requirement for Small UAS, 2120-AL32), and advancing the Small Unmanned 
Aircraft Over People (2120-AK85) rule. The Updates to Clarify and 
Streamline Commercial Space Transportation Regulations proposal would 
update and consolidate current regulations contained in four separate 
parts into a single regulatory part which will provide safety 
objectives to be achieved for the launch of suborbital and orbital 
expendable and reusable vehicles, and the reentry of vehicles. This 
proposal will significantly streamline and simplify licensing of launch 
and reentry operations and will enable novel operations.
     FAA's top deregulatory priorities will be to issue three 
final rules. Use of ADS-B in support of Reduced Vertical Separation 
Minimum (RVSM), (2120-AK87) would revise the requirement for an 
application to operate in RVSM airspace. Recognition of Pilot in 
Command (PIC) Experience in the Military and in part 121 operations, 
(2120-AL-03) would allow pilots with 121 PIC experience prior to July 
31, 2013, but who were not serving as a PIC on that date, to count that 
time toward the 1000 hour experience required to serve as a PIC in part 
121 today. Severe Weather Detection Equipment Requirement for 
Helicopter Air Ambulance (HAA) Operations, (2120-AK94) would allow HAA 
operator to conduct instrument flight rules (IFR) departures and 
approaches procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an 
approved weather reporting source, in HAA aircraft without functioning 
severe weather detection equipment, when there is no reasonable 
expectation of severe weather at the destination, the alternate, or 
along the route of flight.
     More information about these rules can be found in the DOT 
Unified Agenda.

Federal Highway Administration

    FHWA carries out the Federal highway program in partnership with 
State and local agencies to meet the Nation's transportation needs. 
FHWA's mission is to improve continually the quality and performance of 
our Nation's highway system and its intermodal connectors.
    Consistent with this mission, in Fiscal Year 2019, the FHWA will 
continue with ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its surface 
transportation programs. It will also work to implement legislation in 
the most cost-effective way possible. Finally, it will pursue 
regulatory reform in areas where project development can be streamlined 
or accelerated, duplicative requirements can be consolidated, 
recordkeeping requirements can be reduced or simplified, and the 
decision-making authority of our State and local partners can be 
increased.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

    The mission of FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities 
involving commercial trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a 
cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance 
this safety mission. In addition to Agency-directed regulations, FMCSA 
develops regulations mandated by Congress, through legislation such as 
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Acts. FMCSA regulations 
establish minimum safety standards for motor carriers, commercial 
drivers, commercial motor vehicles, and State agencies receiving 
certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial drivers' 
licenses.
    FMCSA's regulatory efforts for FY 2019 will focus on removing 
regulatory burdens and streamlining the grants program. The Agency will 
consider changes to the hours of service regulations that would improve 
operational flexibilities for motor carriers consistent with safety. In 
addition, FMCSA will continue to coordinate efforts on the development 
of autonomous vehicle technologies and review existing regulations to 
identify changes that might be needed.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

     The mission of NHTSA is to save lives, prevent injuries, 
and reduce economic costs due to roadway crashes. The statutory 
responsibilities of NHTSA relating to motor vehicles include reducing 
the number, and mitigating the effects of motor vehicle crashes and 
related fatalities and injuries; providing safety performance 
information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, child 
restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency 
requirements. NHTSA pursues policies that enable safety technologies 
and encourages the development of non-regulatory approaches when 
feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. NHTSA issues new standards 
and regulations or amendments to existing standards and regulations 
when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives reflect a 
careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive analysis of the 
benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the proposed 
regulatory action. Finally, NHTSA considers alternatives consistent 
with principles in applicable executive orders.
    NHTSA's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2019 include 
continuing to coordinate efforts on the development of autonomous 
vehicles and reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation. 
NHTSA also plans to issue several rulemakings and other actions that 
increase safety and reduce

[[Page 57914]]

economic burden. Most prominently, NHTSA plans to seek comments on 
amendments to existing regulations to address barriers to the 
deployment of automated vehicles, particularly those that affect 
vehicles that may have innovative designs. In addition, working with 
the Environmental Protection Agency, NHTSA plans to finalize fuel 
efficiency standards for light vehicles model years (MYs) 2021 thru 
2026 (The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for 
Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, RIN 2127-AL76). 
More information about these rules can be found in the DOT Unified 
Agenda.

Federal Railroad Administration

    FRA exercises regulatory authority over all areas of railroad 
safety and, where feasible, incorporates flexible performance 
standards. To foster an environment for collaborative rulemaking, FRA 
established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The purpose 
of RSAC is to develop consensus recommendations for regulatory action 
on issues FRA brings to it. Even in situations where RSAC consensus is 
not achieved, FRA benefits from receiving input from RSAC. In 
situations where RSAC participation would not be useful (e.g., a 
statutory mandate that leaves FRA with no discretion), FRA fulfils its 
regulatory role without RSAC's input. The RSAC consultation process 
results in regulations that are likely to be better understood, more 
widely accepted, more cost-beneficial, and more correctly applied, 
because of stakeholder participation.
    FRA's current regulatory program continues to reflect a number of 
pending proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), and the FAST Act. These actions 
support a safe, high-performing passenger rail network, address the 
safe and effective movement of energy products, and encourage 
innovation and the adoption of new technology in the rail industry to 
improve safety and efficiencies. FRA's regulatory priority for Fiscal 
Year 2019 will be to continue its work on a final rule that will 
advance high-performing passenger rail by providing alternative ways to 
comply with passenger rail equipment standards (Passenger Equipment 
Safety Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment, RIN 
2130-AC46). This rule would ease regulatory burdens on certain 
passenger rail operations, allowing the development of advanced 
technology and increasing safety benefits. More information about this 
rule is in the DOT Unified Agenda.

Federal Transit Administration

    The mission of FTA is to improve public transportation for 
America's communities. To further that end, FTA provides financial and 
technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, 
subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries, oversees 
safety measures, and helps develop next-generation technology research. 
FTA's regulatory activities implement the laws that apply to 
recipients' uses of Federal funding and the terms and conditions of FTA 
grant awards.
    In addition to the Department-wide goals described above, FTA 
policy regarding regulations is to:
     Ensure the safety of public transportation systems;
     Provide maximum benefit to the Nation's mobility through 
the connectivity of transportation infrastructure;
     Provide maximum local discretion;
     Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal 
resources;
     Protect taxpayer investments in public transportation; and
     Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant 
management process.
    In furtherance of its mission and consistent with statutory 
changes, in Fiscal Year 2019, FTA will focus on deregulatory actions. 
Specifically, FTA will streamline the environmental review process for 
transit projects, update its Project Management Oversight regulation, 
and remove duplicative or outdated rules, such as the Capital Leases 
regulation. More information about these rules can be found in the DOT 
Unified Agenda.

Maritime Administration

    MARAD administers Federal laws and programs to improve and 
strengthen the maritime transportation system to meet the economic, 
environmental, and security needs of the Nation. To that end, MARAD's 
efforts are focused upon ensuring a strong American presence in the 
domestic and international trades and to expanding maritime 
opportunities for American businesses and workers.
    MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the agency's 
responsibility for ensuring the availability of water transportation 
services for American shippers and consumers and, in times of war or 
national emergency, for the U.S. armed forces. Major program areas 
include the following: Maritime Security, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift 
Agreement, National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force, 
Cargo Preference, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, United States 
Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and Training Support, 
Deepwater Port Licensing, and Port and Intermodal Development. 
Additionally, MARAD administers the Small Shipyard Grants Program 
through which equipment and technical skills training are provided to 
America's maritime workforce, with the aim of helping businesses to 
compete in the global marketplace while creating well-paying jobs at 
home.
    MARAD's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2019 will be to 
continue to support the objectives and priorities described above in 
addition to identifying new opportunities for deregulatory action.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

    PHMSA has responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through 
the Associate Administrator for the Office of Hazardous Materials 
Safety (OHMS), PHMSA administers regulatory programs under Federal 
hazardous materials transportation law. Through the Associate 
Administrator for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), PHMSA 
administers regulatory programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws. 
In addition, both offices administer programs under the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
    PHMSA will continue to work toward improving safety related to 
transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes, 
including pipeline, while promoting economic growth, innovation, 
competitiveness, and job creation. PHMSA will concentrate on the 
prevention of high-risk incidents identified through PHMSA's evaluation 
of transportation incident data. PHMSA will use all available Agency 
tools to assess data; evaluate alternative safety strategies, including 
regulatory strategies as necessary and appropriate; target enforcement 
efforts; and enhance outreach, public education, and training to 
promote safety outcomes.
    Further, PHMSA will continue to focus on streamlining its 
regulatory system and reducing regulatory burdens. PHMSA will evaluate 
existing rules to examine whether they remain justified; should be 
modified to account for changing circumstances and technologies; or 
should be streamlined or even repealed. PHMSA will continue to 
evaluate, analyze, and be responsive

[[Page 57915]]

to petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will review regulations, letters of 
interpretation, and petitions for rulemaking, special permits, 
enforcement actions, approvals, international standards, and industry 
standards to identify inconsistencies, outdated provisions, and 
barriers to regulatory compliance.
    In Fiscal Year 2019, OHMS will focus on two priority rulemakings. 
The first is designed to reduce risks related to the transportation of 
hazardous materials by rail. PHMSA aims to publish the final rule 
``Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing 
for High-Hazard Flammable Trains'' (2137-AF08), that expands the 
applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans for crude oil 
trains and requires railroads to share information about high-hazard 
flammable train operations with State and tribal emergency response 
commissions to improve community preparedness. The second rulemaking is 
designed to reduce the risk of transporting lithium batteries by air by 
addressing the unique challenges they pose. Specifically, ``Hazardous 
Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries Transported 
by Aircraft'' (2137-AF20) contains three amendments: (1) A prohibition 
on the transport of lithium ion cells and batteries as cargo on 
passenger aircraft; (2) a requirement that lithium ion cells and 
batteries be shipped at not more than a 30 percent state of charge 
aboard cargo-only aircraft; and (3) a limitation on the use of 
alternative provisions for small lithium cell or battery shipments to 
one package per consignment or overpack.
    OPS will focus on three pipeline rules. The first rulemaking will 
finalize a proposal to change the regulations covering hazardous liquid 
onshore pipelines related to High Consequence Areas for integrity 
management protections, repair timeframes, and reporting for all 
hazardous liquid gathering lines (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous 
Liquid Pipelines, 2137-AE66). The second rulemaking will finalize the 
testing and pressure reconfirmation of certain previously untested gas 
transmission pipelines and certain gas transmission pipelines with 
inadequate records, require operators incorporate seismicity into their 
risk analysis and data integration, require the reporting of maximum 
allowable operating pressure exceedances, allow a 6-month extension of 
integrity management reassessment intervals with notice, and expand 
integrity assessments outside of high consequence areas to other 
populated areas (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, 
2137-AE72). PHMSA is considering issuing a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that would provide regulatory relief to certain pipeline 
operators that experience a reduction in allowable operating pressure 
due to construction that has occurred in the area (Pipeline Safety: 
Class Location Requirements, 2137-AF29).

DOT--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OST)

Proposed Rule Stage

104.  +Processing Buy America Waivers Based on Non Availability 
(Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; 49 U.S.C. 5323(j); 49 U.S.C. 
24405(a); 49 U.S.C. 50101; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, div. 
L, tit. IV sec. 410; 41 U.S.C. 8301 to 8305; E.O. 13788, Buy American 
and Hire American (Apr. 18, 2017)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will establish the applicable regulatory 
standard for waivers from the Buy America requirement on the basis that 
a product or item is not manufactured in the United States meeting the 
applicable Buy America requirement. This standard will require the use 
of items and products with the maximum known amount of domestic 
content. The rule will also establish the required information the 
applicants must provide in applying for such waivers.
    Statement of Need: Pursuant to Executive Order 13788-Buy American 
and Hire American, which establishes as a policy of the executive 
branch to ``maximize, consistent with law . . . the use of goods, 
products, and materials produced in the United States,'' DOT will be 
requiring that applicants for non-availability waivers select products 
that maximize domestic content. In addition, this rule will streamline 
the Buy America non-availability waiver process, and improve 
coordination across the Department of Transportation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 23 U.S.C. 313; 49 U.S.C. 5323(j); 49 U.S.C. 
24405(a); 49 U.S.C. 50101; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, div. 
L, tit. IV 410; 41 U.S.C. 83018305; Executive Order 13788, Buy American 
and Hire American (Apr. 18, 2017).
    Alternatives: TBD.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
    Risks: TBD.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Analiese Marchesseault, Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 
202 366-1675, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2105-AE79

DOT--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)

Final Rule Stage

105. +Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 49 U.S.C. 41703, 44101 to 44106, 
44110 to 44113, and 44701
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 1; 14 CFR 375; 14 CFR 45; 14 CFR 47; 14 CFR 
48; 14 CFR 91.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would provide an alternative, streamlined 
and simple, web-based aircraft registration process for the 
registration of small unmanned aircraft, including small unmanned 
aircraft operated as model aircraft, to facilitate compliance with the 
statutory requirement that all aircraft register prior to operation. It 
would also provide a simpler method for marking small unmanned aircraft 
that is more appropriate for these aircraft. This action responds to 
public comments received regarding the proposed registration process in 
the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft notice of 
proposed rulemaking, the request for information regarding unmanned 
aircraft system registration, and the recommendations from the Unmanned 
Aircraft System Registration Task Force.
    Statement of Need: This interim final rule (IFR) provides an 
alternative

[[Page 57916]]

process that small unmanned aircraft owners may use to comply with the 
statutory requirements for aircraft operations. As provided in the 
clarification of these statutory requirements and request for further 
information issued October 19, 2015, 49 U.S.C. 44102 requires aircraft 
to be registered prior to operation. See 80 FR 63912 (October 22, 
2015). Currently, the only registration and aircraft identification 
process available to comply with the statutory aircraft registration 
requirement for all aircraft owners, including small unmanned aircraft, 
is the paper-based system set forth in 14 CFR parts 45 and 47. As the 
Secretary and the Administrator noted in the clarification issued 
October 19, 2015, and further analyzed in the regulatory evaluation 
accompanying this rulemaking, the Department and the FAA have 
determined that this process is too onerous for small unmanned aircraft 
owners and the FAA. Thus, after considering public comments and the 
recommendations from the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Registration 
Task Force, the Department and the FAA have developed an alternative 
process, provided by this IFR (14 CFR part 48), for registration and 
marking available only to small unmanned aircraft owners. Small 
unmanned aircraft owners may use this process to comply with the 
statutory requirement to register their aircraft prior to operating in 
the National Airspace System (NAS).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA's authority to issue rules on 
aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 
Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA 
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more 
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is 
promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which 
establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate 
regulations and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 
Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce 
by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for other 
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce 
and national security. This rule is also promulgated pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 44101 to 44106 and 44110 to 44113 which require aircraft to be 
registered as a condition of operation and establish the requirements 
for registration and the registration processes. Additionally, this 
rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to the Secretary's authority in 49 
U.S.C. 41703 to permit the operation of foreign civil aircraft in the 
United States.
    Alternatives: Currently, the only registration and aircraft 
identification process available to comply with the statutory aircraft 
registration requirement for all aircraft owners, including small 
unmanned aircraft, is the paper-based system set forth in 14 CFR parts 
45 and 47. As the Secretary and the Administrator noted in the 
clarification issued October 19, 2015, and further analyzed in the 
regulatory evaluation accompanying this rulemaking, the Department and 
the FAA have determined that this process is too onerous for small 
unmanned aircraft owners and the FAA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In order to implement the new 
streamlined, web-based system described in this interim final rule 
(IFR), the FAA will incur costs to develop, implement, and maintain the 
system. Small UAS owners will require time to register and mark their 
aircraft, and that time has a cost. The total of government and 
registrant resource cost for small unmanned aircraft registration and 
marking under this new system is $56 million ($46 million present value 
at 7 percent) through 2020. In evaluating the impact of this interim 
final rule, we compare the costs and benefits of the IFR to a baseline 
consistent with existing practices: For modelers, the exercise of 
discretion by FAA (not requiring registration) and continued broad 
public outreach and educational campaign, and for non-modelers, 
registration via part 47 in the paper-based system. Given the time to 
register aircraft under the paper-based system and the projected number 
of sUAS aircraft, the FAA estimates the cost to the government and non-
modelers would be about $383 million. The resulting cost savings to 
society from this IFR equals the cost of this baseline policy ($383 
million) minus the cost of this IFR ($56 million), or about $327 
million ($259 million in present value at a 7 percent discount rate). 
These cost savings are the net quantified benefits of this IFR.
    Risks: Many of the owners of these new sUAS may have no prior 
aviation experience and have little or no understanding of the NAS, let 
alone knowledge of the safe operating requirements and additional 
authorizations required to conduct certain operations. Aircraft 
registration provides an immediate and direct opportunity for the 
agency to engage and educate these new users prior to operating their 
unmanned aircraft and to hold them accountable for noncompliance with 
safe operating requirements, thereby mitigating the risk associated 
with the influx of operations. In light of the increasing reports and 
incidents of unsafe incidents, rapid proliferation of both commercial 
and model aircraft operators, and the resulting increased risk, the 
Department has determined it is contrary to the public interest to 
proceed with further notice and comment rulemaking regarding aircraft 
registration for small unmanned aircraft. To minimize risk to other 
users of the NAS and people and property on the ground, it is critical 
that the Department be able to link the expected number of new unmanned 
aircraft to their owners and educate these new owners prior to 
commencing operations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/16/15  80 FR 78593
Interim Final Rule Effective........   12/21/15  .......................
OMB Approval of Information            12/21/15  80 FR 79255
 Collection.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      01/15/16  .......................
 End.
Final Rule..........................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Sara Mikolop, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 
20591, Phone: 202-267-7776, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AK82

DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)

Prerule Stage

106. +Removing Regulatory Barriers for Automated Driving Systems

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This notice seeks comment on existing motor vehicle 
regulatory

[[Page 57917]]

barriers to the introduction and certification of automated driving 
systems. NHTSA is developing the appropriate analysis of requirements 
that are necessary to maintain existing levels of safety while enabling 
innovative vehicle designs and removing or modifying those requirements 
that would no longer be appropriate if a human driver will not be 
operating the vehicle. NHTSA previously published a Federal Register 
notice requesting public comment on January 18, 2018.
    Statement of Need: This notice seeks comment on existing motor 
vehicle regulatory barriers to the introduction and certification of 
automated driving systems.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
    Alternatives: NHTSA will seek regulatory alternatives in the 
upcoming proposal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: NHTSA will seek cost and benefit 
estimates in the upcoming proposal.
    Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this 
rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: David Hines, General Engineer Office of Crash 
Avoidance Standards, Department of Transportation, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 
DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-2720, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AM00.

DOT--NHTSA

Proposed Rule Stage

107. +The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (Safe) Vehicles Rule for 
Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.95
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 531; 49 CFR 533.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 1, 2020, Publish Final 
Rule.
    Abstract: The Department of Transportation's National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule to adjust the corporate average 
fuel economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for 
model years (MYs) 2021 through 2026 light-duty vehicles. EPA 
established national GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act 
that extend through 2025, and NHTSA established augural CAFE standards 
for MY 2022-2025 vehicles under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 
as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). This 
joint rulemaking proposes adjustments to those standards, following 
conclusion of the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) process and EPA's Final 
Determination that it is appropriate to adjust the MY 2022-2025 GHG 
emission standards.
    Statement of Need: Setting Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards 
for passenger cars, light trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles 
will reduce fuel consumption, and will thereby improve U.S. energy 
independence and energy security, which has been a national objective 
since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s. Transportation accounts 
for about 70 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption, and light-duty 
vehicles account for about 60 percent of oil use in the U.S. 
transportation sector.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking responds to requirements of 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), title 1, 
subtitle A, section 102, as it amends 49 U.S.C. 32902, which was signed 
into law December 19, 2007. The statute requires that corporate average 
fuel economy standards be prescribed separately for passenger 
automobiles and non-passenger automobiles. For model years 2021 to 
2030, the average fuel economy required to be attained by each fleet of 
passenger and non-passenger automobiles shall be the maximum feasible 
for each model year. The law requires the standards be set at least 18 
months prior to the start of the model year.
    Alternatives: See the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis for 
the discussion of alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: See the accompanying Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the discussion of estimated costs and benefits.
    Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this 
rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/24/18  83 FR 42986
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   09/26/18  83 FR 48578
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/23/18  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   10/26/18  .......................
Analyzing Comments..................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL For More Information: 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: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AL76

DOT--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)

Final Rule Stage

108. +Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Amendments

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 238.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would update existing safety standards 
for passenger rail equipment. Specifically, the rulemaking would add a 
new tier of passenger equipment safety standards (Tier III) to 
facilitate the safe implementation of nation-wide, interoperable, high-
speed passenger rail service at speeds up to 220 mph. The Tier III 
standards require operations at speeds above 125 mph to be in an 
exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings. This rule would also 
establish crashworthiness and occupant protection performance 
requirements as an alternative to those currently specified for Tier I 
passenger train sets. Additionally, the rule would increase from 150 to 
160 mph the maximum

[[Page 57918]]

speed for passenger equipment that complies with FRA's Tier II 
standards. The rule is expected to ease regulatory burdens, allow the 
development of advanced technology, and increase safety benefits.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would update existing safety 
standards for passenger rail equipment. Specifically, the rulemaking 
would add a new tier of passenger equipment safety standards (Tier III) 
to facilitate the safe implementation of nation-wide, interoperable, 
high-speed passenger rail service at speeds up to 220 mph. The Tier III 
standards require operations at speeds above 125 mph to be in an 
exclusive right-of-way without grade crossings. This rule would also 
establish crashworthiness and occupant protection performance 
requirements as an alternative to those currently specified for Tier I 
passenger train sets. Additionally, the rule would increase from 150 to 
160 mph the maximum speed for passenger equipment that complies with 
FRA's Tier II standards. The rule is expected to ease regulatory 
burdens, allow the development of advanced technology, and increase 
safety benefits.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302 
and 20303, 20306, 20701 and 20702, 21301 and 21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 
2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
    Alternatives: The alternatives FRA considered in establishing the 
proposed safety requirements for Tier III train sets are the European 
and Japanese industry standards. However, as neither of those standards 
adequately address the safety concerns presented in the U.S. rail 
environment, FRA rejected adopting either of them as a regulatory 
alternative suitable for interoperable equipment.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule would amend passenger 
equipment safety regulations. It adds a new equipment tier (``Tier 
III'') to facilitate the safe implementation of high-speed rail (up to 
220 mph on dedicated rail lines) and establishes alternative 
crashworthiness performance standards to qualify passenger rail 
equipment for Tier I operations. This rule is deregulatory in nature. 
At the proposed rule stage, FRA estimated the total cost of the 
proposed rule to be between $4.59 and $4.62 billion, discounted to 
between $3.13 and $3.16 billion at a 3% discount rate, and between 
$1.94 and $1.96 billion at a 7% discount rate. The annualized costs 
were estimated to be $64.6 to 65.1 million at a 7% discount rate and 
$101.9 to 102.6 million at a 3% discount rate. FRA estimated the total 
benefits to be between $8.66 and $16.75 billion, discounted to between 
$6.05 and $11.27 billion at a 3% discount rate, and between $3.85 and 
$7.06 billion at a 7% discount rate. The annualized benefits were 
estimated to be $121.8 to 235.8 million at a 7% discount rate and $192 
to 371.7 million at a 3% discount rate. The benefits are derived by 
calculating the difference between the estimated equipment and 
infrastructure costs without the rule and the estimated costs of 
pursuing the same projects with the new rule in effect. The majority of 
the benefits are due to a rule modification that provides Tier III 
train sets the ability to operate on shared track rather than build 
new, independent infrastructure into urban areas. FRA is currently 
evaluating the core assumptions that lead to such large benefits to 
ensure their accuracy.
    Risks: The risk is regulatory uncertainty for potential Tier III 
and Tier I alternative operations. Tier III operations could still be 
conducted, but would require a series of waivers, which are not as 
permanent as regulatory approval (and not as certain). Also, Tier I 
alternative train sets would still require waivers for operation (same 
regulatory uncertainty as for Tier III).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/06/16  81 FR 88006
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/06/17  .......................
Final Rule..........................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Elliott Gillooly, Department of Transportation, 
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, 
DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-4000, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2130-AC46

DOT--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA)

Prerule Stage

109. +Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking regards existing class location 
requirements, specifically as they pertain to actions operators are 
required to take following class location changes. Operators have 
suggested that performing integrity management measures on pipelines 
where class locations have changed due to population increases would be 
an equally safe but less costly alternative to the current requirements 
of either reducing pressure, pressure testing, or replacing pipe.
    Statement of Need: Section 5 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 required the Secretary of 
Transportation to evaluate and issue a report on whether integrity 
management requirements should be expanded beyond high-consequence 
areas and whether such expansion would mitigate the need for class 
location requirements. PHMSA issued a Notice of Inquiry on this topic 
on August 1, 2013, and issued a report to Congress on its evaluation of 
this issue in April 2016. In that report, PHMSA decided to retain the 
existing class location requirements but noted it would further examine 
issues related to pipe replacement requirements when class locations 
change due to population growth. PHMSA noted that it would further 
evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of alternatives to address 
this issue following publication of the final rule titled ``Pipeline 
Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines'' (Docket No. PHMSA-2011-
0023; RIN 2137-AE72). In line with that intent, section 4 of the 
Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 
2016 requires PHMSA to provide a report to Congress no later than 18 
months after the publication of the Gas Transmission final rule that 
reviews the types of benefits, including safety benefits, and estimated 
costs of the legacy class location regulations. Therefore, PHMSA is 
initiating this rulemaking to determine whether the performance on 
integrity management measures, or other safety measures, on pipelines 
where class locations have changed due to population increases would be 
an equally safe but less costly alternative to the current class 
location change requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established the current framework 
for regulating the safety of natural gas pipelines in the Natural Gas 
Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (NGPSA). The NGPSA provided the Secretary 
of Transportation the authority to prescribe minimum Federal safety

[[Page 57919]]

standards for natural gas pipeline facilities. That authority, as 
amended in subsequent reauthorizations, is currently codified in the 
Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).
    Alternatives: In this rulemaking, PHMSA will identify possible 
alternatives to the current class location requirements, specifically 
those requirements causing operators to reduce pressure, pressure test, 
or replace pipe when class locations change in areas due to population 
increases. One such alternative, as suggested by certain members of the 
industry, could include the performance of integrity management 
measures on affected pipelines.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: PHMSA believes there is no cost to 
this rulemaking action, but we will solicit further information on the 
costs and benefits of the current class location requirements as they 
pertain to class location changes, as well as the costs and benefits of 
any alternatives.
    Risks: PHMSA is evaluating whether the performance of integrity 
management, or other alternatives, in lieu of the current regulatory 
requirements for reducing pressure, pressure testing, or replacing pipe 
when class locations change due to population growth, will increase, 
decrease, or maintain the current level of risk. PHMSA notes that while 
certain alternatives to the current regulations might allow for an 
equivalent level of risk, there is a potential for greater consequences 
in an area where a class location has changed due to population 
increases along the pipeline.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/31/18  83 FR 36861
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/01/18  .......................
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cameron H. Satterthwaite, Transportation 
Regulations Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-8553, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AF29

DOT--PHMSA

Proposed Rule Stage

110. +Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium 
Batteries Transported by Aircraft

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 5103(b); 49 U.S.C. 
5120(b)
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 172; 49 CFR 173.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking action would amend the Hazardous 
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 to 180) applicable to the 
transport of lithium cells and batteries by aircraft. The rulemaking 
contains three amendments: (1) A prohibition on the transport of 
lithium ion cells and batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft; (2) a 
requirement that lithium ion cells and batteries be shipped at not more 
than a 30 percent state of charge aboard cargo-only aircraft; and (3) a 
limitation on the use of alternative provisions for small lithium cell 
or battery shipments to one package per consignment or overpack. These 
amendments are consistent with three emergency amendments to the 2015-
2016 International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions 
for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical 
Instructions). The amendments in this rulemaking do not restrict 
passengers or crew members from bringing personal items or electronic 
devices containing lithium batteries aboard aircraft in carry-on or 
checked baggage, or restrict cargo-only aircraft from transporting 
lithium ion batteries at a state of charge exceeding 30 percent when 
packed with or contained in equipment. PHMSA is providing limited 
relief from the passenger aircraft prohibition and the state of charge 
restriction for small lithium ion batteries transported entirely within 
Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to address an immediate 
safety hazard and harmonize the US HMR with emergency amendments to the 
2015-2016 edition of the International Civil Aviation Organization's 
Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air 
(ICAO Technical Instructions). FAA research has shown that air 
transportation of lithium ion batteries poses a safety risk. We are 
issuing this rulemaking to (1) prohibit the transport of lithium ion 
cells and batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft; (2) require all 
lithium ion cells and batteries to be shipped at not more than a 30 
percent state of charge on cargo-only aircraft; and (3) limit the use 
of alternative provisions for small lithium cell or battery shipments 
under 49 CFR 173.185(c).
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is published under the authority 
of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 
et seq. Section 5103(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, 
of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. 
This rule revises regulations for the safe transport of lithium 
batteries by air and the protection of aircraft operators and the 
flying public.
    Alternatives: In this rulemaking, PHMSA considered the following 
three alternatives: (1) PHMSA adopts all of the amendments presented in 
the rule; (2) a No Action alternative; and (3) a Partial Harmonization 
alternative.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: PHMSA estimates the present value 
costs about $46.6 million over 10 years and about $6.6 million 
annualized at a 7 percent discount rate and $56.3 million over 10 years 
and about $6.6 million annualized at a 3 percent discount rate. Based 
on the estimated mean 10-year undiscounted cost of $65.84 million and 
the estimated economic consequences of $34.9 million for a cargo-only 
flight incident, the rulemaking would need to prevent 1.9 incidents 
over the next 10 years for the benefits to exceed the quantified costs, 
or approximately one every 5 years.
    Risks: PHMSA expects the rule will improve safety for flight crews, 
air cargo operators, and the public as a result of the state of charge 
requirement and the consignment and overpack restriction by reducing 
the possibility of fire on cargo-only aircraft. Additionally, the rule 
will harmonize the prohibition of lithium ion batteries as cargo on 
passenger aircraft and eliminate the possibility of a package of 
lithium ion batteries causing or contributing to a fire in the cargo 
hold of a passenger aircraft.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: HM-224I.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 57920]]

    Agency Contact: Kevin Leary, Transportation Specialist, Department 
of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 
202-366-8553, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AF20

DOT--PHMSA

Final Rule Stage

111. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the Pipeline Safety 
Regulations to improve protection of the public, property, and the 
environment by closing regulatory gaps where appropriate, and ensuring 
that operators are increasing the detection and remediation of unsafe 
conditions, and mitigating the adverse effects of hazardous liquid 
pipeline failures.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking addresses Congressional mandates 
in the 2011 Pipeline Reauthorization Act (sections 5, 8, 21, 29, 14) 
and 2016 PIPES Act (sections 14 and 25); NTSB recommendations P-12-03 
and P-12-04; and GAO recommendation 12-388. These statutory mandates 
and recommendations follow a number of high profile and high 
consequence accidents (e.g., the 2010 Marshall, MI spill of almost one 
million gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River). PHMSA is 
amending the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations to: (1) 
Extend reporting requirements to gravity lines that do not meet certain 
exceptions; (2) extend certain reporting requirements to all hazardous 
liquid gathering lines; (3) require inspections of pipelines in areas 
affected by extreme weather, natural disasters, and other similar 
events; (4) require periodic assessments of onshore transmission 
pipelines that are not already covered under the integrity management 
(IM) program requirements; (5) expand the use of leak detection systems 
on onshore hazardous liquid transmission pipelines to mitigate the 
effects of failures that occur outside of high consequence areas; (6) 
modify the IM repair criteria, both by expanding the list of conditions 
that require immediate remediation and consolidating the time frames 
for re-mediating all other conditions; (7) increase the use of inline 
inspection tools by requiring that any pipeline that could affect a 
high consequence area be capable of accommodating these devices within 
20 years, unless its basic construction will not permit that 
accommodation; and (8) clarify other regulations to improve compliance 
and enforcement. The rule also requires safety data sheets and 
inspection of pipelines located at depths greater than 150 feet under 
the surface of the water.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established the current framework 
for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines in the 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-129). 
The HLPSA provided the Secretary of Transportation the authority to 
prescribe minimum Federal safety standards for hazardous liquid 
pipeline facilities. That authority, as amended in subsequent 
reauthorizations, is currently codified in the Pipeline Safety Laws (49 
U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).
    Alternatives: PHMSA proposed alternatives to include offshore and 
gathering lines in the scope of provisions requiring assessments 
outside of HCAs and leak detection systems, and revise the repair 
criteria for pipelines outside HCAs, and evaluated additional 
regulatory alternatives including no action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated annualized costs are $18 
million. Benefits are presented qualitatively and in terms of breakeven 
analysis based on reported consequences from past incidents.
    Risks: These changes will provide PHMSA additional data on 
pipelines to inform risk evaluation and reduce the probability and 
consequences of failures through increased inspections, leak detection, 
and other changes to managing pipeline risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   10/18/10  75 FR 63774
Comment Period Extended.............   01/04/11  76 FR 303
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/18/11
Extended Comment Period End.........   02/18/11
NPRM................................   10/13/15  80 FR 61610
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/08/16
Final Rule..........................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cameron H. Satterthwaite, Transportation 
Regulations Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-8553, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AE66

DOT--PHMSA

112. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, MAOP 
Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements and Other Related 
Amendments

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the pipeline safety 
regulations to address the testing and pressure reconfirmation of 
certain previously untested gas transmission pipelines and certain gas 
transmission pipelines with inadequate records, require operators 
incorporate seismicity into their risk analysis and data integration, 
require the reporting of maximum allowable operating pressure 
exceedances, allow a 6-month extension of integrity management 
reassessment intervals with notice, and expand integrity assessments 
outside of high consequence areas to other populated areas.
    Statement of Need: 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); and section 29 
(seismicity). These statutory mandates and recommendations stem from a 
number of high profile and high consequence gas transmission and 
gathering pipeline incidents and changes in the industry since the 
establishment of existing regulatory requirements (e.g., the San Bruno, 
CA explosion that killed eight people).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress has authorized Federal regulation 
of the transportation of gas by pipeline under the Commerce Clause of 
the U.S. Constitution. Authorization is codified in the Pipeline Safety 
Laws (49 U.S.C.

[[Page 57921]]

60101 et seq.), a series of statutes that are administered by the DOT, 
PHMSA. PHMSA has used that authority to promulgate comprehensive 
minimum safety standards for the transportation of gas by pipeline.
    Alternatives: PHMSA considered alternatives to establishing a newly 
defined moderate consequence area and evaluated requiring assessments 
for all pipelines outside HCAs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates of annualized 
costs are in the range of $40 million; annualized benefits, including 
cost savings, are over $200 million.
    Risks: This rule addresses known risks to gas transmission and 
gathering including the ``grandfather clause'' (exemption for testing 
to establish maximum operating pressure for transmission lines) and new 
unregulated gathering lines that resemble transmission lines.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/25/11  76 FR 53086
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   11/16/11  76 FR 70953
ANPRM Comment Period End............   12/02/11
End of Extended Comment Period......   01/20/12
NPRM................................   04/08/16  81 FR 20721
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/08/16
Final Rule..........................   03/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Robert Jagger, Technical Writer, Department of 
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-4595, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AE72

DOT--PHMSA

113. +Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information 
Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains (FAST Act)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 130; 49 CFR 174; 49 CFR 171; 49 CFR 172; 49 
CFR 173.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would expand the applicability of 
comprehensive oil spill response plans (OSRP) based on thresholds of 
liquid petroleum oil that apply to an entire train. The rulemaking 
would also require railroads to share information about high-hazard 
flammable train operations with State and Tribal emergency response 
commissions to improve community preparedness in accordance with the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST Act). 
Finally, the rulemaking would incorporate by reference an initial 
boiling point test for flammable liquids for better consistency with 
the American National Standards Institute/American Petroleum Institute 
Recommended Practices 3000, ``Classifying and Loading of Crude Oil into 
Rail Tank Cars,'' First Edition, September 2014.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking is important to mitigate the 
effects of potential train accidents involving the release of flammable 
liquid energy products by increasing planning and preparedness. The 
proposals in this rulemaking are shaped by mandates in Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, public comments, National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations, analysis of 
recent accidents, and input from stakeholder outreach efforts 
(including first responders). To this end, PHMSA will consider 
expanding the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans; 
clarifying the requirements for comprehensive oil spill response plans; 
requiring railroads to share additional information; and providing an 
alternative test method for determining the initial boiling point of a 
flammable liquid.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), which 
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe regulations 
for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials 
in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.'' The Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 also includes mandates for 
the information sharing notification requirements. The authority of 33 
U.S.C. 1321, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), which 
directs the President to issue regulations requiring owners and 
operators of certain vessels and onshore and offshore oil facilities to 
develop, submit, update and in some cases obtain approval of oil spill 
response plans. Executive Order 12777 delegated responsibility to the 
Secretary of Transportation for certain transportation-related 
facilities. The Secretary of Transportation delegated the authority to 
promulgate regulations to PHMSA and provides FRA the approval authority 
for railroad OSRPs.
    Alternatives: This rulemaking analyzes five alternative proposals, 
including no change and changing the applicability threshold to analyze 
the impact to affected entities. Under the no change alternative, PHMSA 
would not proceed with any rulemaking on this subject and the current 
regulatory standards would remain in effect.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the rulemaking, PHMSA performed a 
breakeven analysis by identifying the number of gallons of oil that the 
rulemaking would need to prevent from being spilled in order for its 
benefits to at least equal its estimated costs. Additional benefits may 
also be conferred due to ecological and human health improvements that 
may not be captured in the value of the avoided cost of spilled oil. 
PHMSA currently estimates the rulemaking will be cost-effective if the 
requirements reduce the consequences of oil spills by 7.68% with ten 
year costs estimated at $25.2 million and annualized costs of $3.6 
million (using a 7% discount rate).
    Risks: PHMSA expects this rulemaking to mitigate the effects of 
potential train accidents involving the release of flammable liquid 
energy products by increasing planning and preparedness.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/01/14  79 FR 45079
ANPRM Comment Period End............   09/30/14
NPRM................................   07/29/16  81 FR 50067
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/27/16
Final Rule..........................   11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: HM-251B; SB-N, IC-N, SLT-N.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Glen Foster, Transportation Specialist, Department 
of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.

[[Page 57922]]

SE, Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8553, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2137-AE91, Related to 2137-AF07
    RIN: 2137-AF08

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The primary mission of the Department of the Treasury is to 
maintain a strong economy and create economic and job opportunities by 
promoting the conditions that enable economic growth and stability at 
home and abroad, strengthen national security by combatting threats and 
protecting the integrity of the financial system, and manage the U.S. 
Government's finances and resources effectively.
    Consistent with this mission, regulations of the Department and its 
constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement the laws 
as enacted by Congress and signed by the President. It is the policy of 
the Department to comply with applicable requirements to issue a notice 
of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public comments before 
adopting a final rule. Also, the Department invites interested parties 
to submit views on rulemaking projects while a proposed rule is being 
developed.
    To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department 
to adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in 
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, and 13771 and to develop 
regulations that maximize aggregate net benefits to society while 
minimizing the economic and paperwork burdens imposed on persons and 
businesses subject to those regulations.

I. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues 
regulations to implement and enforce Federal laws relating to alcohol, 
tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes and certain non-tax laws 
relating to alcohol. TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
    (1) Collect the taxes on alcohol, tobacco products, firearms, and 
ammunition;
    (2) Protect the consumer by ensuring the integrity of alcohol 
products; and
    (3) Prevent unfair and unlawful market activity for alcohol and 
tobacco products.
    In FY 2019, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations 
Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that reduce regulatory 
burdens, provide greater industry flexibility, and streamline the 
regulatory system, consistent with Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. 
TTB rulemaking priorities also include proposing regulatory changes in 
response to petitions from industry members and other interested 
parties, and requesting comments on ways TTB may further reduce burden 
and support a level playing field for the regulated industry. 
Specifically, during the fiscal year, TTB plans to publish a 
deregulatory final rule, following a notice published in FY 2017, which 
reduces the number of reports submitted by certain regulated industry 
members. TTB also plans to publish for public comment proposed 
deregulatory changes in connection with permit applications and to 
expand industry flexibility with regard to alcohol beverage container 
sizes (standards of fill). Priority projects also include continuing 
the rulemaking issued in FY 2017 in response to industry member 
petitions to authorize new wine treating materials and processes, new 
grape varietal names for use on labels of wine, and new American 
Viticultural Areas (AVAs). None of the TTB rulemaking documents issued 
in FY 2019 are expected to be ``regulatory actions'' under Executive 
Order 13771 and subsequent OMB guidance.
    This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following 
deregulatory and regulatory measures:
     Proposal To Streamline and Modernize Permit Application 
Process (RINs: 1513-AC46, 1513-AC47, 1513-AC48, and 1513-AC49, 
Modernization of Permit and Registration Application Requirements for 
Distilled Spirits Plants, Permit Applications for Wineries, 
Qualification Requirements for Brewers, and Permit Application 
Requirements for Manufacturers of Tobacco Products or Processed 
Tobacco, respectively). (Deregulatory)
    Consistent with E.O. 13771 and 13777, in FY 2017, TTB engaged in a 
review of its regulations to identify any regulatory requirements that 
could potentially be eliminated, modified, or streamlined in order to 
reduce burdens on industry. In FY 2018, TTB worked to remove 
requirements where possible without the need for rulemaking. This 
included the elimination of certain information collected on TTB 
permit-related forms. In FY 2019, TTB intends to propose amending its 
regulations to eliminate or streamline various additional requirements 
for application or qualification of distilled spirits plants, wineries, 
breweries, and manufacturers of tobacco products or processed tobacco. 
In addition, through these regulatory amendments, TTB intends to 
address a number of comments it received from the interested public, 
including industry members, through the Treasury Department's Request 
for Information on deregulatory ideas (Docket No. TREAS-DO-2017-0012, 
published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2017).
     Proposed Revisions to the Regulations To Provide Greater 
Flexibility in the Use of Wine and Distilled Spirits Containers (RIN: 
1513-AB56, Standards of Fill for Wine, and RIN: 1513-AC45, Standards of 
Fill for Distilled Spirits). (Deregulatory)
    In these two notices, TTB will address petitions requesting that it 
amend regulations governing wine and distilled spirits containers to 
provide for additional authorized ``standards of fill.'' (The term 
``standard of fill'' generally relates to the size of containers, 
although the specific regulatory meaning is the authorized amount of 
liquid in the container, rather than the size or capacity of the 
container itself.) If implemented, this proposal would provide industry 
members greater flexibility in producing and sourcing containers and 
meeting consumer demand. This deregulatory action would also eliminate 
restrictions that inhibit competition and the movement of goods in 
domestic and international commerce.
     Revisions to the Regulations To Reduce Report Filing 
Frequency (RIN: 1513-AC30, Changes to Certain Alcohol-Related 
Regulations Governing Bond Requirements and Tax Return Filing Periods). 
(Deregulatory)
    On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into law the 
Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act (PATH Act), which is Division Q 
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. The PATH Act contains 
changes to certain statutory provisions that TTB administers in the 
Internal Revenue Code regarding excise tax return due dates and bond 
requirements for certain smaller excise taxpayers. These amendments 
took effect beginning in January 2017, and TTB published a temporary 
rule amending its regulations to implement these provisions. At the 
same time, TTB published in the Federal Register (82 FR 780) a notice 
of proposed rulemaking requesting comments on the amendments made in 
the temporary rule and proposing further amendments to the regulations 
governing reporting requirements for distilled spirits plants (DSPs) 
and breweries to reduce the regulatory burden on industry members who 
pay taxes and file tax returns annually or

[[Page 57923]]

quarterly. Under the proposal, those industry members would also submit 
reports annually or quarterly, aligned with their filing of the tax 
return, rather than monthly as generally provided under current 
regulations. To be eligible for annual or quarterly filing, the DSP or 
brewery must reasonably expect to be liable for not more than $1,000 in 
excise taxes (in the case of annual filing) or $50,000 in excise taxes 
(in the case of quarterly filing) for the calendar year and must have 
been liable for not more than these respective amounts in the preceding 
calendar year. The reduced reporting frequency will reduce regulatory 
burdens on these smaller industry members.
     Revisions to the Regulations to Reflect Statutory Changes 
to the Definition of Hard Cider under the Internal Revenue Code (RIN: 
1513-AC31). (Not yet determined)
    The PATH Act also contained changes to the Internal Revenue Code 
amending the definition of hard cider for excise tax classification 
purposes. The amended definition broadened the range of products to 
which the hard cider tax rate applies. In FY 2017, TTB published a 
temporary rule amending its regulations to implement these provisions. 
At the same time, TTB published in the Federal Register (82 FR 7753) a 
notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comments on the amendments 
made in the temporary rule, including labeling requirements to identify 
products to which the hard cider tax rate applies. In 2018, TTB 
reopened the comment period for the notice, as requested by industry 
members and, after consideration of the comments, intends to issue a 
final rule in FY 2019.
     Proposal to Modernize the Alcohol Beverage Labeling and 
Advertising Requirements (RIN: 1513-AB54). (Deregulatory)
    The Federal Alcohol Administration Act requires that alcohol 
beverages introduced in interstate commerce have a label issued and 
approved under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. 
In accordance with the mandate of Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 
2011, regarding improving regulation and regulatory review, TTB 
conducted an analysis of its alcohol beverage labeling regulations to 
identify any that might be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 
excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 
them in accordance with that analysis. These regulations were also 
reviewed to assess their applicability to the modern alcohol beverage 
marketplace. As a result of this review, and further review in FY 2017 
and FY 2018 consistent with Executive Orders 13771 and 13777 regarding 
reducing regulatory burdens, in FY 2019, TTB plans to propose revisions 
to consolidate and modernize the regulations concerning the labeling 
requirements for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. TTB 
anticipates that these regulatory changes will assist industry in 
voluntary compliance, decrease industry burden, and result in the 
regulated industries being able to bring products to market without 
undue delay. TTB also anticipates that this notice for public comment 
will give industry members another opportunity to provide comments and 
suggestions on any additional deregulatory measures in these areas.
    In FY 2019, TTB intends to bring to completion a number of 
rulemaking projects published as notices of proposed rulemaking in FY 
2017 in response to industry member petitions to amend the TTB 
regulations and reopened for public comment in FY 2018:
     Proposal to Amend the Regulations to Authorize the Use of 
Additional Wine Treating Materials (RIN: 1513-AB61). (Not yet 
determined)
    In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend its regulations pertaining to the 
production of wine to authorize additional treatments that may be 
applied to wine and to juice from which wine is made. These proposed 
amendments were made in response to requests from wine industry members 
to authorize certain wine treating materials and processes not 
currently authorized by TTB regulations. Although TTB may 
administratively approve such treatments, rulemaking facilitates the 
acceptance of exported wine made using those treatments in foreign 
markets. In FY 2018 TTB reopened the comment period for the notice, as 
requested by industry members and, after consideration of the comments, 
intends to issue a final rule in FY 2019.
     Proposal to Amend the Regulations to Add New Grape Variety 
Names for American Wines (RIN: 1513-AC24). (Not significant)
    In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend its wine labeling regulations by 
adding a number of new names to the list of grape variety names 
approved for use in designating American wines. The proposed 
deregulatory amendments would allow wine bottlers to use these 
additional approved grape variety names on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. In 2018, TTB reopened the comment period for the 
notice, as requested by industry members and, after consideration of 
the comments, intends to issue a final rule in FY 2019.

II. Customs Revenue Functions

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) provides that, although 
many functions of the former United States Customs Service were 
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of 
the Treasury retains sole legal authority over customs revenue 
functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue functions 
to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department Order No. 
100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security authority to prescribe regulations pertaining to the 
customs revenue functions subject to certain exceptions, but further 
provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole authority 
to approve such regulations.
    During fiscal year 2019, CBP and Treasury plan to give priority to 
regulatory matters involving the customs revenue functions which 
streamline CBP procedures, protect the public, or are required by 
either statute or Executive Order. The examples of these efforts 
described below are exempt from Executive Order 13771 as they are non-
significant rules as defined by Executive Order. Examples of these 
efforts are described below.
     Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties. (Not significant)
    Treasury and CBP plan to finalize interim regulations (81 FR 56477) 
which amended CBP regulations implementing section 421 of the Trade 
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which set forth 
procedures to investigate claims of evasion of antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders.
     Modernized Drawback. (Economically significant)
    Treasury and CBP plan to amend CBP regulations to implement changes 
to the drawback law contained in section 906 of the Trade Facilitation 
and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. These proposed changes to the 
regulations will liberalize the standard for substituting merchandise, 
simplify recordkeeping requirements, extend and standardize timelines 
for filing drawback claims, and require the electronic filing of 
drawback claims.
     Enforcement of Copyrights and the Digital Millennium 
Copyright Act. (Significance not yet determined)
    Treasury and CBP plan to propose amendments to the CBP regulations 
pertaining to importations of merchandise that violate or are suspected 
of violating the copyright laws, including the Digital Millennium

[[Page 57924]]

Copyright Act (DMCA), in accordance with Title III of the Trade 
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) and Executive 
Order 13785, ``Establishing Enhanced Collection and Enforcement of 
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties and Violations of Trade and 
Customs Laws.'' The proposed amendments are intended to enhance CBP's 
enforcement efforts against increasingly sophisticated piratical goods, 
clarify the definition of piracy, simplify the detention process 
relative to goods suspected of violating the copyright laws, and 
prescribe new regulations enforcing the DMCA.
     Inter Partes Proceedings Concerning Exclusion Orders Based 
on Unfair Practices in Import Trade. (Deregulatory)
    Treasury and CBP plans to publish a proposal to amend its 
regulations with respect to administrative rulings related to the 
importation of articles in light of exclusion orders issued by the 
United States International Trade Commission (``Commission'') under 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The proposed 
amendments seek to promote the speed, accuracy, and transparency of 
such rulings through the creation of an inter partes proceeding to 
replace the current ex parte process.

III. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

    As administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for developing and 
implementing regulations that are the core of the Department's anti-
money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing efforts. 
FinCEN's responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, 
that role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. 
national security by making the financial system increasingly resistant 
to abuse by money launderers, terrorists and their financial 
supporters, and other perpetrators of crime.
    The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the 
BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file 
reports and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of 
usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in the conduct of 
intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against 
international terrorism. The BSA also authorizes requiring designated 
financial institutions to establish AML programs and compliance 
procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has 
established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the 
financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including 
terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity.
    These objectives and priorities include: (1) Issuing, interpreting, 
and enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) 
supporting, working with, and as appropriate, overseeing compliance 
examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) 
managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data 
related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a government-wide access service to 
that same data and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) 
conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, 
regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) 
coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and AML 
initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as 
well as foreign financial intelligence units.
    FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018 include:
     Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. 
(Deregulatory)
    On March 10, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 
address requests from filers for clarification of certain requirements 
regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, including 
requirements with respect to employees who have signature authority 
over, but no financial interest in, the foreign financial accounts of 
their employers. FinCEN is considering public comments and preparing a 
Final Rule.
     Amendments to the Definitions of Broker or Dealer in 
Securities. (Regulatory)
    On April 4, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
proposing amendments to the regulatory definitions of broker or dealer 
in securities under the BSA's regulations. The proposed changes would 
expand the current scope of the definitions to include funding portals 
and would require them to implement policies and procedures reasonably 
designed to achieve compliance with all of the BSA's requirements that 
are currently applicable to brokers or dealers in securities. FinCEN is 
considering public comments and preparing a Final Rule.
     Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks 
Lacking a Federal Functional Regulator. (Not yet determined)
    On August 25, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
to remove the AML program exemption for banks that lack a Federal 
functional regulator, including, but not limited to, private banks, 
non-federally insured credit unions, and certain trust companies. The 
proposed rule would prescribe minimum standards for AML programs and 
would ensure that all banks, regardless of whether they are subject to 
Federal regulation and oversight, are required to establish and 
implement AML programs. FinCEN is considering public comments and 
preparing a Final Rule.
     Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for 
Investment Advisers. (Regulatory)
    On September 1, 2015, FinCEN published in the Federal Register a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit public comment on proposed 
rules under the BSA that would prescribe minimum standards for anti-
money laundering programs to be established by certain investment 
advisers and to require such investment advisers to report suspicious 
activity to FinCEN. FinCEN is considering those comments and preparing 
a Final Rule.
     Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Persons 
Involved in Real Estate Closings and Settlements. (Regulatory)
    FinCEN intends to issue an ANPRM to initiate a rulemaking that 
would establish BSA requirements for ``persons involved in real estate 
closings and settlements,'' 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(U). The new rules may 
cover various types of businesses and professions involved in real 
estate transactions, including real estate agents and brokers, 
settlement attorneys, and title companies. The data from a series of 
geographical targeting orders issued by FinCEN is being evaluated to 
support this rulemaking to address money laundering through real estate 
transactions, especially acquisitions made via currency transmittals. 
Real estate transactions involving mortgages are already covered by BSA 
rules for banks and FinCEN rules for residential mortgage lenders and 
originators.
     Registration Requirements of Money Services Businesses. 
(Regulatory)
    FinCEN is considering issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
amending the registration requirements for money services businesses.
     Reporting of Cross-Border Electronic Transmittals of 
Funds. (Regulatory)
    FinCEN is considering requiring certain depository institutions and 
money services businesses (MSBs) to affirmatively provide records to 
FinCEN of certain cross-border electronic transmittals of funds 
(CBETF). Current regulations already require that these financial 
institutions maintain and make available, but not affirmatively

[[Page 57925]]

report, essentially the same CBETF information. FinCEN issued this 
proposal to meet the requirements of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA).
     Changes to the Currency and Monetary Instrument Report 
(CMIR) Reporting Requirements. (Significance not yet determined)
    FinCEN will research, obtain, and analyze relevant data to validate 
the need for changes aimed at updating and improving the CMIR and 
ancillary reporting requirements. Possible areas of study to be 
examined could include current trends in cash transportation across 
international borders, transparency levels of physical transportation 
of currency, the feasibility of harmonizing data fields with bordering 
countries, and information derived from FinCEN's experience with 
Geographic Targeting Orders.
     Other Requirements.
    FinCEN also will continue to issue proposed and final rules 
pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as appropriate. 
Finally, FinCEN expects that it may propose various technical and other 
regulatory amendments in conjunction with ongoing efforts with respect 
to a comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance regulatory 
efficiency.

VI. Internal Revenue Service

    During fiscal year 2019, the IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax 
Policy have the following regulatory priorities. The first priority is 
to provide guidance regarding initial implementation of key provisions 
of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), Public Law 115-97. Initial 
implementation priorities include:
     Guidance under sections 101 and 1016 and new section 6050Y 
regarding reportable policy sales of life insurance contracts.
     Guidance under section 162(f) and new section 6050X.
     Computational, definitional, and other guidance under new 
section 163(j).
     Guidance on new section 168(k).
     Computational, definitional, and anti-avoidance guidance 
under new section 199A.
     Definitional and other guidance under new section 451(b) 
and (c).
     Guidance on computation of unrelated business taxable 
income for separate trades or businesses under new section 512(a)(6).
     Guidance implementing changes to section 529.
     Guidance implementing new section 965 and other 
international sections of the TCJA.
     Guidance implementing changes to section 1361 regarding 
electing small business trusts.
     Guidance regarding Opportunity Zones under sections 1400Z-
1 and 1400Z-2.
     Guidance under new section 1446(f) for dispositions of 
certain partnership interests.
     Guidance on computation of estate and gift taxes to 
reflect changes in the basic exclusion amount.
     Guidance regarding withholding under sections 3402 and 
3405 and optional flat rate withholding.
     Guidance on certain issues relating to the excise tax on 
excess remuneration paid by ``applicable tax-exempt organizations'' 
under section 4960.
     Guidance regarding new section 1061.
     Guidance regarding new section 6695(g).
    In addition, the IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax Policy will 
continue to pursue the actions recommended in the Second Report 
pursuant to Executive Order 13789 to eliminate, or in other cases 
reduce, the burdens imposed on taxpayers by eight regulations that the 
Treasury has identified for review under Executive Order 13789. The 
remaining deregulatory actions include:
    1. Finalize amendment of regulations under section 7602 regarding 
the participation of attorneys described in section 6103(n) in a 
summons interview. Proposed amendments were published on March 28, 
2018.
    2. Finalize removal of temporary regulations under section 707 
concerning treatment of liabilities for disguised sale purposes. 
Proposed regulations that proposed the removal of the temporary 
regulations under section 707 and the reinstatement of the prior 
section 707 regulations were published on June 19, 2018.
    3. Proposed removal of documentation regulations under section 385 
and review of other regulations under section 385. A notice delaying 
the application of the documentation regulations was published on 
August 14, 2017.
    4. Proposed modification of regulations under section 367 regarding 
the treatment of certain transfers of property to foreign corporations.
    5. Proposed modification of regulations under section 337(d) 
regarding certain transfers of property to regulated investment 
companies (RICs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs).
    6. Proposed modification of regulations under section 987 on income 
and currency gain or loss with respect to a section 987 qualified 
business unit.
    The IRS and Treasury are also prioritizing implementation of the 
President's Executive Order 13813, Promoting Healthcare Choice and 
Competition Across the United States. The Executive Order, among other 
things, directs Treasury and the Departments of Labor and Health and 
Human Services to consider proposing or revising regulations or 
guidance to increase the usability of health reimbursement 
arrangements.
    Finally, it is a priority of the IRS to publish regulations under 
section 1101 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) that are 
necessary to implement the new centralized partnership audit regime 
enacted in November 2015. Section 1101(g)(1) of the BBA provides that 
the new regime is generally effective for partnership tax years 
beginning after December 31, 2017. Final regulations regarding the 
election out of the centralized partnership audit regime were published 
January 2, 2018. Final regulations regarding the partnership 
representative and the election to apply the centralized partnership 
audit regime were published August 9, 2018. Proposed regulations 
implementing the centralized partnership audit regime were published 
August 17, 2018.

V. Bureau of the Fiscal Service

    The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) administers 
regulations pertaining to the Government's financial activities, 
including: (1) Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including 
regulating the sale and issue of Treasury securities; (2) administering 
Government revenue and debt collection; (3) administering government-
wide accounting programs; (4) managing certain Federal investments; (5) 
disbursing the majority of Government electronic and check payments; 
(6) assisting Federal agencies in reducing the number of improper 
payments; and (7) providing administrative and operational support to 
Federal agencies through franchise shared services.
    During fiscal year 2019, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to 
the following regulatory projects:
     Management of Federal Agency Receipts. (Not yet 
determined)
    The Fiscal Service plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 
to amend 31 CFR part 206 governing the collection of public money, 
along with a request for public comments. This notice will propose 
implementing statutory authority which mandates that some or all nontax 
payments made to

[[Page 57926]]

the Government, and accompanying remittance information, be submitted 
electronically. Receipt of such items electronically offers significant 
efficiencies and cost-savings to the government, compared to the 
receipt of cash, check or money order payments.
     Amendment of Electronic Payment Regulation. (Deregulatory)
    The Fiscal Service is proposing to amend its electronic payment 
regulation at 31 CFR part 208. The amendment would eliminate obsolete 
references in the rule, including references to the Electronic Transfer 
Account (ETA\sm\). In addition, the proposed rule would provide for the 
disbursement of non-benefit payments through Treasury-sponsored 
accounts, such as the U.S. Debit Card.
     Government Participation in the Automated Clearing House. 
(Not yet determined)
    The Fiscal Service is proposing to amend its regulation at 31 CFR 
part 210 governing the government's participation in the Automated 
Clearing House (ACH). The proposed amendment would address changes to 
the National Automated Clearing House Association's (NACHA) private-
sector ACH rules since those rules were last incorporated by reference 
in Part 210. Among other things, the amendment would address the 
expansion of Same-Day ACH.

VI. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters, 
regulates, and supervises all national banks and Federal savings 
associations (FSAs). The agency also supervises the Federal branches 
and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC's mission is to ensure that 
national banks and FSAs operate in a safe and sound manner, provide 
fair access to financial services, treat customers fairly, and comply 
with applicable laws and regulations.
    Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2019 include the following 
regulatory actions, which include rules implementing various provisions 
of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act 
(Pub. L. 115-174) (EGRRCPA):
     Capital Simplification (12 CFR part 3).
    The banking agencies \2\ are planning to issue rulemakings to 
simplify the generally applicable capital framework with the goal of 
meaningfully reducing regulatory burden on community banking 
organizations while at the same time maintaining safety and soundness 
and the quality and quantity of regulatory capital in the banking 
system. These rulemakings will incorporate the new requirements set 
forth in section 201 of EGRRCPA, the community bank leverage ratio, and 
section 214 of EGRRCPA, requiring a revised approach to defining which 
acquisition, development, and construction loans should be deemed high 
volatility commercial real estate exposures. A notice of proposed 
rulemaking proposing various capital simplifications was issued on 
October 27, 2017, 82 FR 49984. A notice of proposed rulemaking 
concerning high volatility commercial real estate exposures was 
published on September 28, 2018, 83 FR 48990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System (FRB), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Capital: Standardized Approach for Counterparty Credit 
Risk (12 CFR part 3).
    The banking agencies are planning to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to implement a risk sensitive approach to counterparty 
credit risk using a risk adjusted notational amount of derivatives, 
allowing for better recognition of netting, and distinguishing margined 
trades from un-margined trades.
     Reforming the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Regulatory 
Framework (12 CFR parts 25 and 195).
    The OCC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking setting 
forth a new approach to CRA to bring clarity, transparency, 
flexibility, and less burden for regulated financial institutions and 
consumers. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published on 
September 5, 2018, 83 FR 45053.
     Employment Contracts (12 CFR part 163).
    The OCC plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to remove 
the requirement that the board of directors of an FSA approve 
employment contracts with all employees and limit the approval 
requirement only to contracts with senior executives.
     Supplementary Leverage Ratio Standards (SLR) for Bank 
Holding Companies and Subsidiary Insured Depository Institutions (12 
CFR part 3).
    The OCC and FRB issued a proposed rule that would modify the 
enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards for U.S. top-tier bank 
holding companies identified as global systemically important bank 
holding companies, or GSIBs, and certain of their insured depository 
institution subsidiaries. In light of section 402 of EGRRCPA, which 
requires the Federal banking agencies to propose changes to the 
supplementary leverage ratio denominator for custody banks, the 
agencies intend to publish a new rulemaking to implement section 402. 
The notice of proposed rulemaking was published on April 19, 2018, 83 
FR 17317.
     Exception from Appraisals of Real Property Located in 
Rural Areas (12 CFR part 34).
    The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 
to implement section 103 of EGRRCPA. Section 103 amended Title XI of 
the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 
to exclude loans made by a financial institution from the requirement 
to obtain a Title XI appraisal if certain conditions are met.
     Expanded Examination Cycle for Certain Small Insured 
Depository Institutions (12 CFR part 4).
    To implement section 210 of EGRRCPA, the banking agencies issued an 
interim final rule expanding the 18-month examination schedule to 
qualifying well-capitalized and well-managed institutions with less 
than $3 billion in total assets. The interim final rule was published 
on August 29, 2018, 83 FR 43961.
     Heightened Capital Requirements for Investments in Long-
Term Debt Instruments Issued by Global Systemically Important Bank 
Holding Companies and Intermediate Holding Companies (12 CFR part 3).
    The banking agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that 
would specify capital requirements applicable to an advanced approaches 
banking organization that invests in long-term debt instruments issued 
pursuant to the FRB's total loss absorbing capacity regulations, either 
by a bank holding company or an intermediate holding company.
     Implementation of the Current Expected Credit Losses 
Standard for Allowances and Related Adjustments (12 CFR parts 1, 3, 5, 
23, 24, 32, 34, and 46).
    The banking agencies plan to issue a final rule to reflect the 
upcoming adoption by banking organizations of FASB's Accounting 
Standards Update 2016-13, which introduces the current expected credit 
losses methodology (CECL) for estimating allowances for credit losses. 
The notice of proposed rulemaking was issued on May 14, 2018, 83 FR 
22312.
     Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements (12 CFR part 
42).
    Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, July 21, 2010) (Dodd-Frank Act) 
requires the banking agencies, National Credit Union

[[Page 57927]]

Administration (NCUA), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and 
the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to jointly prescribe 
regulations or guidance prohibiting any type of incentive-based payment 
arrangement, or any feature of any such arrangement, that the 
regulators determine encourages inappropriate risks by covered 
financial institutions by providing an executive officer, employee, 
director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees, 
or benefits, or that could lead to material financial loss to the 
covered financial institution. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires such 
agencies jointly to prescribe regulations or guidelines requiring each 
covered financial institution to disclose to its regulator the 
structure of all incentive-based compensation arrangements offered by 
such institution sufficient to determine whether the compensation 
structure provides any executive officer, employee, director, or 
principal shareholder with excessive compensation or could lead to 
material financial loss to the institution. The notice of proposed 
rulemaking was published on June 10, 2016, 81 FR 37669.
     Liquidity Coverage Ratio Rule: Treatment of Certain 
Municipal Obligations as Level 2B High-Quality Liquid Assets (12 CFR 
part 50).
    To implement section 403 of EGRRCPA, the banking agencies issued an 
interim final rule that would add investment-grade municipal 
obligations to the list of permitted assets for high-quality liquid 
assets (HQLA), as defined in the agencies' Liquidity Coverage Ratio 
(LCR) rules. The interim final rule was published on August 31, 2018, 
83 FR 44451.
     Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards-Private Flood 
Insurance (12 CFR part 22).
    The banking agencies, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the 
NCUA plan to issue a final rule to amend their regulations regarding 
loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement the private 
flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform 
Act of 2012. The notice of proposed rulemaking was published on 
November 7, 2016, 81 FR 78063.
     Management Official Interlocks Asset Thresholds (12 CFR 
part 26).
    The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 
that would amend agency regulations interpreting the Depository 
Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA) to increase the asset 
thresholds based on inflation or market changes. The current asset 
thresholds are set at $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion.
     Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities 
(12 CFR part 45).
    The banking agencies, FHFA, and FCA issued a final rule to amend 
the minimum margin 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 (Swap Margin Rule). The notice of proposed rulemaking was 
issued on February 21, 2018, 83 FR 7413, requesting comment on the 
agencies' plan to revise one definition in the current rule to match 
the definition used for the same purpose in the agencies' capital 
regulations. The final rule was published on October 10, 2018, 83 FR 
50805.
     Net Stable Funding Ratio (12 CFR part 50).
    The banking agencies plan to issue a final rule to implement the 
Basel net stable funding ratio standards. These standards would require 
large, internationally active banking organizations to maintain 
sufficient stable funding to support their assets generally over a one-
year time horizon. The notice of proposed rulemaking was published on 
June 1, 2016, 81 FR 35123.
     Other Real Estate Owned (12 CFR part 34).
    The OCC plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on other 
real estate owned (OREO). The proposed rule would update and clarify 
provisions relating to OREO for national banks and establish a 
framework to assist Federal savings associations with managing and 
disposing of OREO in a safe and sound manner.
     Proposed Revisions to Prohibitions 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 are planning to issue a final rule that would 
amend the regulations implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding 
Company Act. Section 13 contains certain restrictions on the ability of 
banking entities to engage in proprietary trading and acquire or retain 
certain interests in, or enter into certain relationships with, a hedge 
fund or private equity fund. The amendments are intended to provide 
banking entities with clarity about what activities are prohibited and 
to improve supervision and implementation of section 13.
    The banking agencies intend to address sections 203 and 204 of 
EGRRCPA through a separate rulemaking process.
    Pursuant to section 203 of EGRRCPA, OCC-supervised institutions 
with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or less are not ``banking 
entities'' within the scope of section 13 of the BHCA, if their trading 
assets and trading liabilities do not exceed 5 percent of their total 
consolidated assets, and they are not controlled by a company that has 
total consolidated assets over $10 billion or total trading assets and 
trading liabilities that exceed 5 percent of total consolidated assets. 
In addition, section 204 of EGRRCPA revises the statutory provisions 
related to the naming of covered funds. The notice of proposed 
rulemaking was issued on July 17, 2018, 83 FR 33432.
     Receiverships for Uninsured Federal Branches and Agencies 
(12 CFR chapter I).
    The OCC plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
setting forth key issues to be addressed prior to the development of a 
framework for receiverships of uninsured Federal branches and agencies.
     Rules of Practice and Procedure (12 CFR part 19).
    The banking agencies plan to issue a proposed rule to amend their 
rules of practice and procedure to reflect modern filing and 
communication methods and improve or clarify other procedures.
     Short-Form Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income 
(12 CFR part 3).
    The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 
to provide criteria for banks and savings associations eligible to file 
a short-form report in the first and second quarters pursuant to 
section 205 of the EGRRCPA.
     Stress Testing (12 CFR part 46).
    The OCC is planning to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
amend the annual stress test rule for national banks and Federal 
savings associations (FSAs) required under section 165(i) of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 
July 21, 2010) (12 U.S.C. 5365(i)) (Dodd-Frank Act). These changes are 
required by section 401 of the EGRRCPA, which amended the Dodd-Frank 
Act to raise the threshold for national banks and FSAs subject to DFAST 
from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets, reduce 
the number of stress test scenarios, and revise the annual stress test 
requirement to a periodic requirement.
     Covered Savings Associations (12 CFR part 101).
    The OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement section 
206 of the EGRRCPA, which adds a new section 5A of the Home Owners' 
Loan

[[Page 57928]]

Act. Section 5A allows Federal savings associations with assets of $20 
billion or less to elect to operate as ``covered savings 
associations.'' Covered savings associations operate with the same 
rights and are subject to the same restrictions as a national bank in 
the same location. As required by section 5A, the NPRM will propose 
standards and procedures for making the election. It will also address 
nonconforming assets and clarify requirements for the treatment of 
covered savings associations. The notice of proposed rulemaking was 
published on September 18, 2018, 83 FR 47101.

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 
high-quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and 
their dependents. The primary mission of the Veterans Health 
Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis 
to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing 
homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The 
primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury 
eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their 
dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries 
as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful 
Nation to commemorate their service and sacrifice to our Nation.
    VA's regulatory priority plan consists of five high priority 
regulations with statutory deadlines. Four of the five are Veterans 
Health Administration (VHA) regulations and the fifth one is a Veterans 
Benefits Administration (VBA) Loan Guaranty regulation.
    Three of the VHA regulations intend to codify the VA Mission Act of 
2018, in accordance with section 101, 102 and 105 of Public Law 115-182 
(hereafter referred to as the ``Mission Act''). VA is required to 
implement the Veterans Community Care Program by June 6, 2019, under 
which VA will provide care to eligible Veterans through non-VA 
providers in the community. Under the Mission Act VA is also required 
to establish procedures to ensure eligible Veterans are able to access 
walk-in care from certain community providers by June 6, 2019.
    The other VHA regulation intends to implement provisions from the 
Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, Public Law 
115-55. This act allows VA to revise and enhance VA's rules for 
processing claims and appeals and is effective February 19, 2019.
    The remaining VBA regulation is required to promulgate regulations 
governing cash-out home loans in accordance with the Economic Growth, 
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act by November 20, 2018. 
This rule defines the parameters of when VA will permit cash-out home 
loans, to include defining net tangible benefit, recoupment, and 
seasoning requirements.

VA

Proposed Rule Stage

114.  Veterans Community Walk-In Care

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1725A; Pub. L. 115-182, sec. 105
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.4200; 38 CFR 17.4225; . . .
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 6, 2018, Public Law 115-182, 
section 105.
    By June 6, 2019, VA is required to develop procedures to ensure 
eligible Veterans are able to access walk-in care from certain 
community providers.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to add 
new regulations to title 38 Code of Federal Regulations to implement 
section 105 of Public Law 115-182 (hereafter referred to as the 
``Mission Act''), to establish procedures to ensure eligible Veterans 
are able to access walk-in care from certain community providers by 
June 6, 2019.
    Statement of Need: By June 6, 2019, VA is required to develop 
procedures to ensure eligible Veterans are able to access walk-in care 
from certain community providers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Pub. L. 115-182, section 105.
    Alternatives: If VA does not add these new regulations, it will not 
be able to implement the required Community Walk-in Care Program by the 
statutory deadline of June 6, 2019. VA would risk not meeting the 
statutory deadline, and Veterans would not be able to receive walk-in 
care as required by law.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/19  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Andrea Sperr, Regulation Specialist, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 
202 461-6725, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AQ47

VA

Final Rule Stage

115.  Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 
Protection Act (The Act), Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Public Law 115-174, sec. 309; 38 U.S.C. 3703 and 
3710
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 36.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 20, 2018.
    This law has a statutory deadline and requires the SECVA to publish 
a regulation in the Federal Register not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this law.
    Abstract: The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 
Protection Act requires VA to promulgate regulations governing cash-out 
home loans. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its 
rules on VA-guaranteed or insured cash-out home loans. The This rule 
defines the parameters of VA cash-out home

[[Page 57929]]

loans, to include defining net tangible benefits, recoupment, and 
seasoning requirements.
    Statement of Need: Section 309 of this law, the SECVA shall 
promulgate a Loan Guarantee rulemaking (regulation) to ensure that such 
refinancing is in the financial interest of the borrower, including 
rules relating to recoupment, seasoning, and net tangible benefits.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 115-174, sec. 309 requires VA to 
publish these regulations.
    Alternatives: Section 309 of this law requires that SECVA shall 
promulgate a Loan Guarantee rulemaking (regulation) to ensure that such 
refinancing is in the financial interest of the borrower, including 
rules relating to recoupment, seasoning, and net tangible benefits. 
There are no other alternatives to promulgate such regulation. However, 
VA did consider alternatives when developing new cash-out refinance 
policies, the guaranty and insurance of Type I and Type II case outs 
and different alternatives for establishing provisions regarding 
seasoning, recoupment and interest rate reduction that apply to Type I 
Cash-Outs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: VA's Office of Financial Management 
(OFM) scored the rulemaking as a loss in funding revenue of $33.1 
million in FY2019 and $91.3 million over a three-year period (FY2019 
through FY2021), using the 2019 President's budget (PB) baseline. There 
are no FTE or GOE costs associated with this rulemaking. The impact is 
due to reduced funding fees generated related to the decrease in total 
cash-out refinance loan amount.
    Risks: If VA decided not to regulate, mortgage lenders may seek to 
find loopholes in the Act and continue to aggressively market and offer 
refinance loans to veterans that may not be in their financial 
interest. This regulation is necessary to inform all parties of the 
requirements to originate future loans for VA loan guaranty. It is 
urgent and compelling to issue this rule to provide clarity so that 
market disruption is minimized. While VA is required to issue this rule 
by statute, by not promulgating a rule industry uncertainty may lead to 
less access to mortgage capital for veterans.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule..........................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Greg Nelms, Supervisor, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 632-
8978, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AQ42

VA

116.  Veterans Health Administration Benefits Claims, Appeals, 
and Due Process

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Public Law 115-55; 38 U.S.C. 501(a); 38 U.S.C. 
501, 1721 and 7105
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.132; 38 CFR 17.133; . . .
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, February 14, 2019, IFR to be 
published in time to coincide with effective date of law.
    Public Law 115-55, section 2(x), provides generally that the new 
review system will apply to all claims for which a notice of decision 
is provided by the agency of original jurisdiction on or after the 
later of (a) 540 days from the date of enactment, which falls on 
February 14, 2019, or (b) 30 days after the date on which the Secretary 
certifies to Congress that VA is ready to carry out the new appeals 
system.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revises its 
regulations concerning its claims and appeals process governing various 
programs administrated by the Veterans Health Administration. In 
preparation for the launch of modernized claims and appeals processes 
mandated by the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 
2017, VA has reviewed the regulations governing various programs 
administered by its Veterans Health Administration and determined that 
certain sections are inconsistent with statutory requirements. This 
rulemaking amends those sections to ensure that they are no longer 
inconsistent with requirements contained in the law.
    Statement of Need: The Veterans Appeals Improvement and 
Modernization Act of 2017, Public Law 115-55, overhauled VA's rules for 
processing claims and appeals, effective February 19, 2019. To 
successfully implement changes in the context of healthcare benefits 
administered by VA's Veterans Health Administration (VHA), VA must make 
minor revisions to multiple sections of title 38 regulations applicable 
to healthcare benefits and appeals processing, and VA must enact 
delimiting dates to end certain processes, such as claim 
reconsideration, that are no longer permissible under the revised law.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 115-55 requires VA to publish 
the regulations to coincide with the effective date of this law.
    Alternatives: VA initially determined that a subsequent regulation 
to VA's 2900-AQ26 regulation was not necessary, because VHA adopted 
VBA's part 3 procedural rules some time ago through our own internal 
guidance, and those rules remain in effect until we publish rulemaking 
to the contrary. In practical terms, this means that in the absence of 
VHA-specific Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) notice and comment 
rulemaking, applicable provisions of 2900-AQ26, and other 38 CFR part 3 
processes apply to VHA as they do to VBA. However, VA intends to 
publish this rulemaking to provide additional regulatory clarity.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
    Risks: If VA does not make minor revisions and add necessary 
delimiting dates, there is a risk that the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims, which reviews VA benefit appeals, could determine that 
healthcare claimants have rights that are inconsistent with 
(essentially in addition to) revised statutory authorities. This would 
place VHA claimants in the enviable position of enjoying rights that do 
not extend to claimants whose benefits are administered by VA's other 
administrations Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and National 
Cemetery Administration (NCA) and other adjudication activities, such 
as VA's Office of General Counsel (OGC).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule..........................   01/00/19  .......................
Final Rule Effective................   02/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Ethan Kalett, Director, VHA Regulations, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 675Q, Washington, DC 
20420, Phone: 202 461-7633, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AQ44


[[Page 57930]]



VA

117.  Veterans Care Agreements

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1703A; Public Law 115-182, sec. 102
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.4100; 38 CFR 17.4150; . . .
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 6, 2019, Public Law 115-182, 
section 102.
    VA is required to establish the permanent Community Care program 
under 38 U.S.C. 1703 by June 6, 2019. By June 6, 2019, VA's current 
ability to use provider agreements and individual authorizations to 
purchase community care will also lapse. The procurement agreements 
established in this interim final rule, and authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
1703A, are required to implement the program required under 38 U.S.C. 
1703.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to add 
new regulations to title 38 Code of Federal Regulations to implement 
section 102 of Public Law 115-182 (hereafter referred to as the 
``Mission Act''), to establish the use of Veterans Care Agreements 
(VCAs) to procure care in the community for eligible Veterans.
    Statement of Need: In accordance with section 101 of the Mission 
Act, VA is required to implement the Veterans Community Care Program by 
June 6, 2019, under which VA will provide care to eligible Veterans 
through non-VA providers in the community. Also under the Mission Act, 
the current Veterans Choice Program to provide community care will 
lapse on June 6, 2019, as will two of VA's current methods of procuring 
community care (Veterans Choice Program provider agreements, and 
individual authorizations). The VCAs under section 102 of the Mission 
Act will essentially replace these two current methods of VA 
procurement of community care, and the VCAs are required to be in place 
six months prior to implementation of the Veterans Community Care 
Program to provide lead time for VA to establish new procurement 
relationships with community providers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 115182, section 102 requires VA 
to establish the permanent Community Care program under 38 U.S.C. 1703 
by June 6, 2019. The procurement agreements established in this interim 
final rule, and authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1703A, are required to 
implement the program required under 38 U.S.C. 1703.
    Alternatives: TBD.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
    Risks: If VA does not publish new regulations, it will not be able 
to implement the required Veterans Community Care Program and legally 
procure care for our Nations Veterans, which is a tremendous health and 
safety risk.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   05/00/19  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      06/00/19  .......................
 End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Ethan Kalett, Director, VHA Regulations, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 675Q, Washington, DC 
20420, Phone: 202 461-7633, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AQ45

VA

118.  Veterans Community Care Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1703; Public Law 115-182, sec. 101
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.4000; . . .
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, June 6, 2019, Public Law 115-182, 
section 101.
    VA is required to establish the permanent Community Care program 
under 38 U.S.C. 1703 by June 6, 2019.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to add 
new regulations to title 38 Code of Federal Regulations to implement 
section 101 of Public Law 115-182 (hereafter referred to as the 
``Mission Act''), to establish the Veterans Community Care Program by 
June 6, 2019, under which VA will provide care to eligible Veterans 
through non-VA providers in the community. Also under the Mission Act, 
the current Veterans Choice Program to provide community care will 
lapse on June 6, 2019. To ensure this transition to the new Veterans 
Community Care Program occurs without a significant disruption in 
Veterans' care, implementation must occur through an interim final rule 
to establish criteria for receipt of care or services upon VA's 
authorization and the election of eligible veterans, primarily: (1) 
Whether VA offers the care or service required; (2) whether VA operates 
a full-service medical facility in the State in which the Veteran 
resides; (3) whether the Veteran meets certain conditions related to 
eligibility under the 40 mile criterion in the Veterans Choice Program; 
(4) whether VA is able to furnish care or services in a manner that 
complies with designated access standards developed by the Secretary; 
and (5) whether the Veteran and the Veteran's referring clinician agree 
that furnishing care and services through a community entity or 
provider is in the best medical interest of the Veteran based upon 
criteria developed by VA. This interim final rule will also establish 
criteria by which covered Veterans could receive care if VA determined 
a medical services line was not meeting VA's standards for quality, 
with certain limitations. An interim final rule is necessary because VA 
requires additional time to develop the policy decisions necessary to 
interpret the legal criteria stated above (e.g., interpreting or 
defining the phrase does not offer the care or services, defining a 
full service medical facility, and developing the required access and 
quality standards), to implement the Veterans Community Care Program by 
June 6, 2019.
    Statement of Need: An interim final rule is necessary because VA 
requires additional time to develop the policy decisions necessary to 
interpret the legal criteria stated above (e.g., interpreting or 
defining the phrase does not offer the care or services, defining a 
full service medical facility, and developing the required access and 
quality standards), to implement the Veterans Community Care Program by 
June 6, 2019. Also under the Mission Act, the current Veterans Choice 
Program to provide community care will lapse on June 6, 2019. To ensure 
this transition to the new Veterans Community Care Program occurs 
without a significant disruption in Veterans' care, implementation must 
occur through an interim final rule to establish criteria for receipt 
of care or services upon VA's authorization and the election of 
eligible veterans.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Implement section 101 of Public Law 115-182 
(hereafter referred to as the Mission Act).
    Alternatives: TBD.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
    Risks: The Veterans Choice Program to provide community care will 
lapse on June 6, 2019. If VA does not publish new regulations, it will 
not be able to implement the required Veterans

[[Page 57931]]

Community Care Program, which would significantly disrupt Veterans' 
healthcare. More specifically, specialty care for veterans with chronic 
illnesses would not be readily available, critical maternity services 
would not be available and emergency care services would be negatively 
impacted and overwhelmed.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   05/00/19  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      06/00/19  .......................
 End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Andrea Sperr, Regulation Specialist, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 
202 461-6725, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AQ46

BILLING CODE: 8320-01-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Priorities

Overview

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the laws 
enacted by Congress and signed by the President to protect people's 
health and the environment. In carrying out these statutory mandates, 
the EPA works to ensure that all Americans are protected from 
significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, 
learn and work; that national efforts to reduce environmental risk are 
based on the best available scientific information; that Federal laws 
protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and 
effectively; that environmental protection is an integral consideration 
in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic 
growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and 
international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in 
establishing environmental policy; that all parts of society--
communities, individuals, businesses, and State, local and tribal 
governments--have access to accurate information sufficient to 
effectively participate in managing human health and environmental 
risks; that environmental protection contributes to making our 
communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically 
productive; and, that the United States plays a leadership role in 
working with other nations to protect the global environment.
    To accomplish its goals in the coming year, the EPA will use 
regulatory authorities, along with grant- and incentive-based programs, 
technical and compliance assistance and tools, and research and 
educational initiatives to address its statutory responsibilities. All 
of this work will be undertaken with a strong commitment to science, 
law and transparency.

Highlights of EPA's Regulatory Plan

    The EPA's more than forty years of protecting public health and the 
environment demonstrates our nation's commitment to reducing pollution 
that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use, and the 
communities we live in. Our nation has made great progress in making 
rivers and lakes safer for swimming and boating, reducing the smog that 
clouded city skies, cleaning up lands that were once used as hidden 
chemical dumps and providing Americans greater access to information on 
chemical safety. To achieve continued positive environmental results, 
we must foster and maintain a sense of shared accountability between 
states, tribes and the federal government. This Regulatory Plan 
contains information on some of our most important upcoming regulatory 
and deregulatory actions. As always, our Semiannual Regulatory Agenda 
contains information on a broader spectrum of the EPA's upcoming 
regulatory actions.

Improve Air Quality

    As part of its mission to protect human health and the environment, 
the EPA is dedicated to improving the quality of the nation's air. From 
1970 to 2017, aggregate national emissions of the six criteria air 
pollutants were reduced over 70 percent, while gross domestic product 
grew by over 260 percent. The EPA's work to control emissions of air 
pollutants is critical to continued progress in reducing public health 
risks and improving the quality of the environment. The Agency will 
continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where appropriate and 
warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, the EPA will work with States and 
tribes to accurately measure air quality and ensure that more Americans 
are living and working in areas that meet air quality standards. The 
EPA will continue to develop standards, as directed by the Clean Air 
Act, for both mobile and stationary sources, to reduce emissions of 
sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, toxics, and other 
pollutants.
    Electric Utility Sector Greenhouse Gas Rules. The EPA will continue 
its review of the Clean Power Plan suite of actions issued by the 
previous administration affecting fossil fuel-fired electric generating 
units (EGUs). On October 23, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule that 
established first-ever standards for States to follow in developing 
plans to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing 
fossil fuel-fired EGUs. On the same day, the EPA issued a final rule 
establishing CO2 emissions standards for newly constructed, 
modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel fired EGUs. The Agency has 
proposed an alternative approach that is appropriately grounded in the 
EPA's statutory authority and consistent with the rule of law. This 
alternative approach would appropriately promote cooperative federalism 
and respect the authority and powers that are reserved to the States; 
promote the Administration's dual goals of protecting public health and 
the environment, while also supporting economic growth and job 
creation; and appropriately maintain the diversity of reliable energy 
resources and encourage the production of domestic energy sources to 
achieve energy independence and security.
    Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule. On August 1, 2018, 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to amend certain 
existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas 
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish 
new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026. The proposed 
rule published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2018 (83 FR 
42986), and the EPA docket is currently open for submittal of public 
comments. NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings on this 
proposal, which were announced in a supplemental Federal Register 
notice also published on August 24, 2018 (83 FR 42817).
    New Source Review and Title V Permitting Programs Reform. The CAA 
establishes a number of permitting programs designed to carry out the 
goals of the Act. The EPA directly implements some of these programs 
through its regional offices, but most are carried out by States, local 
agencies, and approved tribes. New Source Review (NSR) is a 
preconstruction permitting program that ensures that the addition of 
new and

[[Page 57932]]

modified sources does not significantly degrade air quality. NSR 
permits are legal documents that the facility owners/operators must 
abide by. The permit specifies what construction is allowed, what 
emission limits must be met, and often how the emissions source may be 
operated. There are three types of NSR permits: (1) Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) (CAA part C) permits, which are 
required for new major sources or a major source making a major 
modification in an attainment area; (2) Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) (CAA 
part D) permits, which are required for new major sources or major 
sources making a major modification in a nonattainment area; and (3) 
Minor source permits.
    CAA title V requires major sources of air pollutants, and certain 
other sources, to obtain and operate in compliance with an operating 
permit. Sources with these ``title V permits'' are required by the CAA 
to certify compliance with the applicable requirements of their permits 
at least annually.
    In accordance with the President's goal to streamline permitting 
regulations for manufacturing facilities, the EPA has initiated an 
effort to issue a series of targeted improvements, including guidance 
memos and, as necessary, associated rulemakings, to simplify the New 
Source Review (NSR) process in manner consistent with the Clean Air 
Act.
    We have recently highlighted flexibilities in the implementation of 
NSR regulations available to manufacturing facilities for the 
permitting of new projects. Two recent memos, for example, clarified 
that project emissions accounting can take place in the first step of 
the NSR applicability process for all project categories and that the 
EPA will not ``second guess'' preconstruction analysis that complies 
with procedural requirements. In FY19, the EPA intends to follow-up 
these memos with rulemaking to codify these policies. Based on the 
recommendations of a number of state environmental agencies as well as 
small businesses under the air toxics program, the EPA has also 
rescinded its ``once-in, always-in'' policy. A major source which takes 
enforceable limitations on its potential to emit (PTE) hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) emissions below the applicable thresholds becomes an 
area source (strike ``,'') and is no longer subject to maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, no matter when the 
source may choose to take measures to limit its PTE. In early 2019, EPA 
anticipates that it will publish a Federal Register notice to take 
comment on adding regulatory text to reflect EPA's plain language 
reading of the statute.
    Oil and Gas. The EPA is reviewing the Agency's Oil and Gas New 
Source Performance Standards. In June 2017, the EPA granted 
reconsideration of some specific requirements under the 2016 New Source 
Performance Standards, and indicated that the Agency would also look 
broadly at the entire rule, including the regulation of greenhouse 
gases through an emission limitation on methane. The EPA is issuing a 
proposal for public review and comment in the fall of 2018.

Provide for Clean and Safe Water

    The nation's water resources are the lifeblood of our communities, 
supporting our economy and way of life. Across the country we depend 
upon reliable sources of clean and safe water. Just a few decades ago, 
many of the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries were grossly 
polluted, wastewater sources received little or no treatment, and 
drinking water systems provided very limited treatment to water coming 
through the tap. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), tremendous progress has been made 
toward ensuring that Americans have safe water to drink and generally 
improving the quality of the Nation's waters. While progress has been 
made, numerous challenges remain in such areas as nutrient loadings, 
storm water runoff, invasive species and drinking water contaminants. 
These challenges can only be addressed by working with our State and 
tribal partners to develop new and innovative strategies in addition to 
the more traditional regulatory approaches. The EPA plans to address 
the following challenging issues, in part, in rulemakings.
    Waters of the U.S. In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the Department of the Army (the agencies) published the ``Clean Water 
Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' (2015 Rule) (80 FR 
37054, June 29, 2015). On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 Rule nationwide pending further 
action of the court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed 
Executive Order 13778, ``Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and 
Economic Growth by Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule'' 
which instructed the agencies to review the 2015 Rule and rescind or 
replace it as appropriate and consistent with law. The agencies have 
determined to address the Executive Order in a comprehensive two-step 
process. On July 27, 2017, the agencies published a Federal Register 
notice proposing to repeal (Step 1) the 2015 Rule and recodify the pre-
existing regulations; the initial 30-day comment period was extended an 
additional 30 days to September 28, 2017. The agencies signed a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on June 29, 2018 clarifying 
and seeking additional comment on the Step 1 proposal.
    In Step 2 (Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States'), 
the agencies plan to pursue a public notice-and-comment rulemaking in 
which the agencies would conduct a substantive reevaluation of the 
definition of ``waters of the United States.'' As part of this 
reevaluation, the agencies are considering defining ``navigable 
waters'' in a manner consistent with the plurality opinion of Justice 
Scalia in the Rapanos decision, as instructed by Executive Order 13778.
    On February 6, 2018, the agencies issued a final rule adding an 
applicability date to the 2015 Rule of February 6, 2020, to provide 
continuity and certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes, 
and the public while the agencies conduct Step 2 of the rulemaking. 
Until the new definition is finalized, the agencies will continue to 
implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the 2015 Rule 
consistent with Supreme Court decisions and practice, and as informed 
by applicable agency guidance documents.
    Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam 
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. On November 3, 2015, 
under the authority of the CWA, the EPA issued a final rule amending 
the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) and Standards for the Steam 
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (i.e., 2015 Steam 
Electric ELG). The amendments addressed and contained limitations and 
standards on various waste streams at steam electric power plants: Fly 
ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas mercury 
control wastewater, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, 
gasification wastewater, and combustion residual leachate. In early 
2017, the EPA received two petitions for reconsideration of the Steam 
Electric ELG rule, one from the Utility Water Act Group and one from 
the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy. On August 11, 
2017, the Administrator announced his decision to conduct a rulemaking 
to potentially revise the Best Available Technology Economically 
Achievable (BAT) effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for 
existing sources in the 2015 rule that apply to bottom ash transport 
water and FGD

[[Page 57933]]

wastewater. In light of the reconsideration, the EPA views that it is 
appropriate to postpone impending deadlines as a temporary, stopgap 
measure to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of resources until it 
completes reconsideration of the 2015 rule. Thus, the Administrator 
signed a final rule on September 9, 2017, postponing the earliest 
compliance dates for the BAT effluent limitations and PSES for bottom 
ash transport water and FGD wastewater in the 2015 Rule, from November 
1, 2018 to November 1, 2020. The EPA expects to publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking for the Steam Electric reconsideration in March 
2019.
    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper--
Long Term Revisions. The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) reduces risks to 
drinking water consumers from lead and copper that can enter drinking 
water as a result of corrosion of plumbing materials. The LCR requires 
water systems to sample at taps in homes with leaded plumbing 
materials. Depending upon the sampling results, water systems must take 
actions to reduce exposure to lead and copper including corrosion 
control treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement. 
The LCR was promulgated in 1991 and, overall, has been effective in 
reducing the levels of lead and copper in drinking water systems across 
the country. However, lead crises in Washington, DC, and in Flint, 
Michigan, and the subsequent national attention focused on lead in 
drinking water in other communities, have underscored significant 
challenges in the implementation of the current rule, including a rule 
structure that, for many systems, only compels protective actions after 
public health threats have been identified. Key challenges include the 
rule's complexity; the degree of flexibility and discretion it affords 
systems and primacy states with regard to optimization of corrosion 
control treatment; compliance sampling practices, which in some cases, 
may not adequately protect from lead exposure; and limited specific 
focus on key areas of concern such as schools. There is a compelling 
need to modernize and clarify implementation of the rule to strengthen 
its public health protections and to make it more effective and more 
readily enforceable. The EPA is evaluating the costs and benefits of 
the potential revisions and assessing whether the benefits justify the 
costs.
    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Perchlorate. 
Perchlorate is an inorganic chemical produced for use in rocket 
propellants, fireworks, road flares, and explosives. Perchlorate is 
also formed naturally in the environment, particularly in arid 
climates, and may be present as an impurity in hypochlorite solutions 
(bleach). In February 2011, the EPA announced its decision to regulate 
perchlorate under SDWA. The EPA determined that perchlorate meets 
SDWA's three criteria for regulating a contaminant: (1) Perchlorate may 
have adverse health effects because scientific research indicates that 
perchlorate can disrupt the thyroid's ability to produce the hormones 
needed for normal growth and development; (2) there is a substantial 
likelihood that perchlorate occurs with frequency at levels of health 
concern in public water systems because monitoring data show over four 
percent of public water systems have detected perchlorate; and (3) 
there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction since 
between 5.1 and 16.6 million people may be provided with drinking water 
containing perchlorate. In 2013, the Science Advisory Board recommended 
that the EPA use models, rather than the traditional approach to 
establish the health based Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for a 
perchlorate regulation. The EPA and FDA scientists worked 
collaboratively to develop biological models in accordance with SAB 
recommendations. The EPA will utilize the best available peer reviewed 
science to inform regulatory decision making for perchlorate.
    Peak Flows Management. Wet weather events (e.g., rain, snowmelt) 
can impact publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) operations when 
excess water enters the wastewater collection system. The increased wet 
weather flows can exceed the POTW treatment plant's capacity to provide 
the same type of treatment for all of the incoming wastewater. The 
treatment plant's secondary treatment units are the most likely to be 
adversely affected by wet weather because the biological systems can be 
damaged when too much water flows through them. POTWs employ a variety 
of operational practices to ensure the integrity of their secondary 
treatment units during wet weather, and the EPA plans to propose 
updates to the regulations which will seek to clarify permitting 
procedures for POTWs with separate sanitary sewer systems under wet 
weather operational conditions. The goal of these updates will be to 
ensure a consistent national approach for permitting POTWs that 
provides for efficient treatment plant operation while protecting the 
public from potential adverse health effects of inadequately treated 
wastewater.
    Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Regulatory Revision. Section 404(c) 
of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Administrator ``to prohibit the 
specification (including withdrawal of the specification) of any 
defined area as a disposal site'' as well as to ``deny or restrict the 
use of any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of 
specification) as a disposal site . . . whenever he determines, after 
notice and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such 
materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on 
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including 
spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.'' In 
June 2018, the EPA announced that it would initiate an update to the 
regulations governing the EPA's role in permitting discharges of 
dredged or fill material under section 404 of the CWA. The EPA's 
current regulations on the implementation of section 404(c) of the CWA 
allow the Agency to veto--at any time--a permit issued by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE) or an approved state that allows for the 
discharge of dredged or fill material at specified disposal sites. The 
goal of this effort would be to increase predictability and regulatory 
certainty for landowners, investors, businesses, and other 
stakeholders. This rulemaking will consider, at minimum, changes to the 
EPA's 404(c) review process that would govern the future use of the 
EPA's section 404(c) authority.

Revitalize Land and Prevent Contamination

    The EPA works to improve the health and livelihood of all Americans 
by cleaning up and returning land to productive use, preventing 
contamination, and responding to emergencies. The EPA collaborates with 
other federal agencies, industry, states, tribes, and local communities 
to enhance the livability and economic vitality of neighborhoods. 
Challenging and complex environmental problems persist at many 
contaminated properties, including contaminated soil, sediment, surface 
water, and groundwater that can cause human health concerns. The EPA's 
regulatory program recognizes the progress made in cleaning up and 
returning land to productive use, preventing contamination, and 
responding to emergencies, and works to incorporate new technologies 
and approaches that allow us to provide for an environmentally 
sustainable future more efficiently and effectively.
    Reconsideration of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations 
Under

[[Page 57934]]

Clean Air Act. Both the EPA and the Occupational Safety & Health 
Administration (OSHA) issued regulations, as required by the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990, in response to a number of catastrophic 
chemical accidents occurring worldwide that had resulted in public and 
worker fatalities and injuries, environmental damage, and other 
community impacts. OSHA published the Process Safety Management 
standard in 1992, and the EPA modeled the Risk Management Program (RMP) 
regulation after it. The EPA published the RMP rule in two stages: (1) 
A list of regulated substances and threshold quantities in 1994, and 
(2) the RMP final regulation with risk management requirements in 1996. 
Both the OSHA standard and the EPA RMP regulation aim to prevent, or 
minimize the consequences of, accidental chemical releases to workers 
and the community.
    On January 13, 2017, the EPA amended the RMP regulations in order 
to (1) reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental releases, (2) 
improve emergency response when those releases occur, and (3) enhance 
state and local emergency preparedness and response in an effort to 
mitigate the effects of accidents.
    Prior to the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule, the EPA 
received petitions for reconsideration under Clean Air Act Section 
307(d)(7)(B). Petitioners sought reconsideration of the RMP Amendments 
based on what they view as either EPA's failure to coordinate with OSHA 
and DOT as required by paragraph (D) of CAA section 112(r)(7) or at 
least inadequate coordination. Furthermore, petitioners indicated that 
the arson findings from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and 
Explosives regarding the West Fertilizer 2013 explosion undercut EPA's 
basis for the proposed rule. Petitioners also raised security concerns 
related to sharing information with local emergency planning and 
response organizations and concerns about EPA's economic analysis and 
the economic burden associated with certain rule provisions. Having 
considered the concerns regarding the RMP Amendments rule raised in 
these petitions, the EPA subsequently delayed the effective date of the 
RMP Amendments rule to February 19, 2019, in order to give the EPA time 
to reconsider it. On May 30, 2018, the EPA published proposed changes 
to the rule and sought public comment on the proposed revisions and 
other related issues.
    Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal 
Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities. Remand Rules. The EPA is 
planning to modify the final rule on the disposal of Coal Combustion 
Residuals (CCR) as solid waste under subtitle D of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act issued in 2015. As a result of a 
settlement agreement on this final rule, the EPA is addressing specific 
technical issues remanded by the court. Further, the Water 
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 established new 
statutory provisions applicable to CCR units, including authorizing 
states to implement the CCR rule through an EPA-approved permit program 
and authorizing the EPA to enforce the rule. Therefore the EPA is 
proposing to amend certain performance standards in the CCR rule 
through several rulemaking efforts to offer additional flexibility to 
state permitting authorities with an approved program. The EPA proposed 
the first of these rulemaking efforts, the Phase One rule, in March 
2018. The EPA then finalized a small number of the proposed Phase one 
rule provisions in the July 2018 Phase One Part One rule.
    Designation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances as Hazardous 
Substances. On May 22, 2018, the EPA held a two-day National Leadership 
Summit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Administrator 
announced that the EPA will begin the process to propose designating 
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 
as ``hazardous substances'' through one of the available statutory 
mechanisms, including section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The EPA is currently 
evaluating the various statutory mechanisms, such as the. Clean Water 
Act Section 307(a) and Section 311. However, the Agency has not yet 
made a final decision on which mechanism is most appropriate.

Ensure Safety of Chemicals in the Marketplace

    Chemicals and pesticides released into the environment as a result 
of their manufacture, processing, use, or disposal can threaten human 
health and the environment. The EPA gathers and assesses information 
about the risks associated with chemicals and pesticides and acts to 
minimize risks and prevent unreasonable risks to individuals, families, 
and the environment. The EPA acts under several different statutory 
authorities, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
(FFDCA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right-to-Know-Act (EPCRA), and the Pollution 
Prevention Act (PPA). Using best available science, the Agency will 
continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and 
highlights the following efforts underway in FY 2019:
    Implementing TSCA Amendments To Enhance Public Health and Chemical 
Safety. The amendments to TSCA that were enacted in June 2016 now 
require the EPA to evaluate existing chemicals on the basis of the 
health risks they pose-including risks to vulnerable groups and to 
workers who may use chemicals daily as part of their jobs. If 
unreasonable risks are found, the EPA must then take steps to eliminate 
these risks. However, during the risk management phase, EPA must 
balance the risk management decision with potential disruption based on 
compliance to the national economy, national security, or critical 
infrastructure.
    The 2016 amendments to TSCA also require the EPA to take expedited 
regulatory action without a risk evaluation for persistent, 
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals from the 2014 update of the 
TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that meet a specific set of 
criteria. Under the conditions of use for each PBT chemical, the EPA 
will characterize likely exposures to humans and the environment; this 
information is undergoing peer review and public comment. The exposure 
assessments will then be used to develop regulatory actions that 
address the risks of injury to health or the environment that the EPA 
determines are presented by the chemical substances and that reduce 
exposure to the chemical substances to the extent practicable. TSCA 
requires the EPA to issue proposed rules no later than June 22, 2019, 
and final rules no more than 18 months later.
    The 2016 amendments to TSCA also authorize the EPA to cover a 
portion of its annual costs for the TSCA program by collecting user 
fees from chemical manufacturers and processors when they submit test 
data for the EPA review; submit a premanufacture notice for a new 
chemical or a notice of new use; manufacture or process a chemical 
substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation; or request that the 
EPA conduct a chemical risk evaluation. In Fiscal Year 2019, the EPA 
expects to take final action on the 2018 proposed fees rule.
    Review of Lead Dust Hazard Standards Under TSCA. In June 2018,

[[Page 57935]]

EPA proposed strengthening the dust-lead hazard standards on floors and 
window sills. These standards apply to most pre-1978 housing and child-
occupied facilities, such as day care centers and kindergarten 
facilities. Per a court order deadline, EPA intends on taking final 
action in June 2019.
    Reconsideration of Pesticide Safety Requirements. In Fiscal Year 
2019, the EPA expects to take a final action on amendments to pesticide 
safety regulations that address requirements for the certification of 
pesticide applicators and established agricultural worker protection 
standards, which EPA intends on proposing in 2018. Specifically, the 
EPA is considering amending changes to the Certification of Pesticide 
Applicators regulations that EPA issued in 2017, and changes to the 
agricultural Worker Protection Standard regulations that EPA issued in 
2015.

Annual Regulatory Costs

    Section 3 of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) 
calls on agencies to ``identify for each regulation that increases 
incremental cost, the offsetting regulations . . . and provide the 
agency's best approximation of the total costs or savings associated 
with each new regulation or repealed regulation.'' Each action in the 
EPA's fall 2017 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda 
contains information about whether an action is anticipated to be 
``regulatory'' or ``deregulatory'' in fulfilling this executive 
directive. Based on current schedules and expectations regarding 
whether or not regulatory actions are subject to Executive Order 12866 
and hence Executive Order 13771, in fiscal year 2019, the EPA is 
planning on finalizing approximately 30 deregulatory actions and fewer 
than ten regulatory actions.

Rules Expected To Affect Small Entities

    By better coordinating small business activities, the 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 the EPA's Regulatory Flexibility website 
(https://www.epa.gov/reg-flex) at any time.

EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)

Proposed Rule Stage

119. Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 
112 of the Clean Air Act

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: These amendments would address when a major source can 
become an area source, and, thus, become not subject to national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for major 
sources under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112. The amendments will 
implement the EPA's plain language reading of the CAA section 112 
definitions of ``major'' and ``area'' sources as discussed in the 
January 2018 William Wehrum memorandum titled ``Reclassification of 
Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.'' 
(See notice in 83 FR 5543, February 8, 2018.) This action will provide 
an opportunity for interested persons to provide comment on many of the 
same issues covered in the 2007 NESHAP: General Provision Amendments 
(72 FR 69, January 3, 2017).
    Statement of Need: The EPA will issue a proposed rule to add 
regulatory text that reflects EPA's plain language reading of the 
statute as discussed in the January 25, 2018, William Wehrum Memorandum 
(see notice in 83 FR 5543, February 8, 2018).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The January 25, 2018, William Wehrum 
Memorandum withdrew the Once In, Always In (OIAI) policy that required 
facilities that are major sources for HAP on the first substantive 
compliance date of a NESHAP maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) standard to comply permanently with the MACT standard. The EPA 
will issue a proposal to add regulatory text that reflects EPA's plain 
language reading of the statute as discussed in the January 25, 2018, 
William Wehrum Memorandum.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Adding regulatory text to be 
consistent with the plain language reading will allow sources 
classified as major to become area sources. This could lead to 
regulatory burden reduction for sources that have reclassified to area 
source status by not having to comply with previously applicable CAA 
section 112 major source requirements. An analysis to determine cost 
savings and benefits is underway to support issuance of a proposed 
rule.
    Risks: Not yet determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/03/07  72 FR 69
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   03/05/07  72 FR 9718
Notice..............................   02/08/18  83 FR 5543
Second NPRM.........................   02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0094.
    Agency Contact: Elineth Torres, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D205-
02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541-4347, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AM75

EPA--OAR

120. Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing 
Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guideline 
Implementing Regulations; Revisions to New Source Review Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411, Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On April 4, 2017, the EPA announced it is reviewing the 
Clean Power Plan (CPP), found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUU via 
Executive Order 13771. The EPA has, in a separate action, proposed to 
repeal the CPP. The EPA solicited input on a CPP replacement rule 
through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) published on 
December 28, 2017. On August 31, 2018, the EPA published the proposed 
Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule in the Federal Register as a 
replacement for the CPP.
    Statement of Need: The EPA has conducted its initial review of the 
CPP, as directed by Executive Order 13783,

[[Page 57936]]

and has concluded that suspension, revision, or rescission of [the CPP] 
may be appropriate on the basis of the agency's proposed 
reinterpretation of the statutory provisions underlying the CPP. In 
light of the EPA's proposed repeal of the CPP and issued ANPRM, the 
agency has signed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule as a 
replacement to the CPP. The proposed ACE rule is intended to reduce 
carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil-fueled electric 
generating units. The proposal solicits information on the development 
of such a regulation with the intention of promulgating a final 
replacement.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act, section 111, 42 U.S.C. 7411, 
provides the legal framework and basis for a potential replacement rule 
that the Agency is considering developing.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined. In the intended 
proposed replacement to the CPP, the Agency will assess the costs and 
benefits.
    Risks: Not yet determined. In the intended proposed replacement to 
the CPP, the Agency will assess the risks to the extent feasible.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/28/17  82 FR 61507
NPRM................................   08/31/18  83 FR 44746
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/30/18
Final Rule..........................   03/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    Agency Contact: Nicholas Swanson, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
Phone: 919 541-4080, Email: [email protected].
    Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
2968, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AT67

EPA--OAR

121. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 
New Source Review (NSR): Project Emissions Accounting

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    CFR Citation: Undetermined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Under the New Source Review (NSR) pre-construction 
permitting program, sources undergoing modifications need to determine 
whether their modification is considered a major modification and thus 
subject to NSR pre-construction permitting. A source owner determines 
if its source is undergoing a major modification under NSR using a two-
step applicability test. The first step is to determine if there is a 
``significant emission increase'' of a regulated NSR pollutant from the 
proposed modification (Step 1) and the second step is to determine if 
there is a ``significant net emission increase'' of that pollutant 
(Step 2). In this action, we are proposing the consideration of 
emissions increases and decreases from a modification in Step 1 of the 
NSR major modification applicability test for all unit types (i.e., 
new, existing, and hybrid units).
    Statement of Need: In March 2018, the Agency issued an 
interpretative memorandum to clarify that we interpret our current NSR 
regulations to allow Project Emissions Accounting for hybrid units as 
well as for new and existing units. This regulation would further 
clarify the concept of Project Emissions Accounting for all types of 
emissions units.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 40 CFR 52.21.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be analyzed as the proposal is 
developed.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits will be analyzed 
as the proposal is developed.
    Risks: Risks will be analyzed as the proposal is developed.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0048.
    Agency Contact: Jessica Montanez, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, C504-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
Phone: 919 541-3407, Fax: 919 541-5509, Email: 
[email protected].
    Raj Rao, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, C504-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
5344, Fax: 919 541-5509, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AT89

EPA--OAR

122. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On June 3, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) published a final rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 
Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Final 
Rule.'' Following promulgation of the final rule, the Administrator 
received petitions for reconsideration of several provisions of the 
rule. The EPA is addressing those specific reconsideration issues in a 
separate proposal. A number of states and industry associations sought 
judicial review of the rule, and the litigation is currently being held 
in abeyance. On March 28, 2017, newly elected President Donald Trump 
issued Executive Order 13783 titled ``Promoting Energy Independence and 
Economic Growth,'' which directs agencies to review existing 
regulations that potentially burden the development of domestic energy 
resources, and appropriately suspend, revise or rescind regulations 
that unduly burden the development of U.S. energy resources beyond what 
is necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with 
the law. In 2017, the EPA provided notice to initiate the review of the 
2016 rule and stated that, if appropriate, it will initiate proceedings 
to suspend, revise or rescind the rule. Subsequently, in a notice dated 
June 5, 2017, the EPA further committed to look broadly at the entire 
2016 rule. The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to 
address key policy issues, such as the regulation of greenhouse gases, 
in this sector.
    Statement of Need: On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule 
titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and

[[Page 57937]]

Modified Sources; Final Rule.'' On March 28, 2017, newly elected 
President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13783 titled ``Promoting 
Energy Independence and Economic Growth,'' which directs agencies to 
review existing regulations that potentially burden the development of 
domestic energy resources, and appropriately suspend, revise or rescind 
regulations that unduly burden the development of U.S. energy resources 
beyond what is necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise 
comply with the law. In 2017, the EPA provided notice to initiate the 
review of the 2016 rule and stated that, if appropriate, it will 
initiate proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind the rule. 
Subsequently, in a notice dated June 5, 2017, the EPA further committed 
to look broadly at the entire 2016 rule. The purpose of this action is 
to propose amendments to address key policy issues, such as the 
regulation of greenhouse gases, in this sector. This proposal will 
solicit comments and/or information from the public regarding the 
Agency's proposed requirements and options under consideration. These 
amendments are anticipated to remove regulatory duplication in an 
effort to reduce burden.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The review of the 2016 OOOOa rule is an 
exercise of the EPA's authority under section 111(b)(1)(B), section 
307(d)(7)(B) and section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act.
    Alternatives: For the 2016 OOOOa review proposal, we anticipate 
soliciting comment on a lead policy option for the regulation of 
greenhouse gases and the sector regulatory structure and an alternative 
policy option under consideration.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These values are estimates that are 
likely to change. Note all values at 7 percent discount rate in 2016 
dollars. Total Present Value of Cost (2019 through 2025): $101 million 
Costs Annually: $18 million Forgone Benefits (2019 through 2025); $13 
million Forgone Benefits Annually: $2.3 million.
    Risks: We do not anticipate any risks to health related to this 
action.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0757.
    Sectors Affected: 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 
Extraction; 221210 Natural Gas Distribution; 211112 Natural Gas Liquid 
Extraction; 486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil; 486210 
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/clean-air-act-standards-and-guidelines-oil-and-natural-gas-industry
    Agency Contact: Amy Hambrick, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143-
05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-0964, Fax: 919 
541-0516, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AT90

EPA--OAR

123. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants Residual Risk 
and Technology Review and Cost Review

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412, Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 63.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This action will address the Agency's residual risk and 
technology review (RTR) of the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 
Generating Units (commonly referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards (MATS)), 40 CFR 63, subpart UUUUU, promulgated pursuant to 
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on February 16, 2012 (67 FR 
9464), and address other issues associated with the 2012 rule.
    Statement of Need: The EPA has completed its initial review of the 
MATS Supplemental Cost Finding (81 FR 24420, April 25, 2016) to 
determine if the finding will be reconsidered. The EPA will issue the 
results of the review in a notice of proposed rulemaking and will 
solicit comment on the resulting finding. The EPA will also, in the 
same action, propose the results of the RTR for MATS.
    Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 112, 42 U.S.C. 7412, provides 
the legal framework and basis for regulatory actions addressing 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources. CAA 
section 112(f)(2) requires EPA, within 8 years of the promulgation of 
standards under CAA section 112(d), to determine whether additional 
standards are needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. CAA 
section 112(d)(6) requires EPA to review, and revise as necessary, 
emission standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d) at least every 
8 years, taking into account developments in practices, processes and 
control technologies.
    Alternatives: Not yet determined. The EPA will consider whether 
alternative options are warranted once the Agency has completed the 
review of the Supplemental Cost Finding and the RTR.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined. Costs and 
benefits will depend upon the results of the review of the Supplemental 
Cost Finding and on the results of the RTR.
    Risks: Not yet determined. Risks will depend upon the results of 
the review of the Supplemental Cost Finding and on the results of the 
RTR.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18  .......................
                                     -----------------------------------
Final Rule..........................           To Be Determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234.
    Sectors Affected: 921150 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal 
Governments; 221122 Electric Power Distribution; 221112 Fossil Fuel 
Electric Power Generation.
    Agency Contact: Mary Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243-
01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-5025, Email: 
[email protected].
    Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
2968, Email: [email protected]
    RIN: 2060-AT99

EPA--OAR

124. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model 
Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411, Clean Air Act

[[Page 57938]]

    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the 
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 
2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks'' (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The 
SAFE Vehicles Rule, if finalized, would amend certain existing 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe carbon dioxide 
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish 
new standards, all covering model years 2021 through 2026. More 
specifically, EPA proposed to amend its carbon dioxide emissions 
standards for model years 2021 through 2025 because they are no longer 
appropriate and reasonable in addition to establishing new standards 
for model year 2026. The preferred alternative is to retain the model 
year 2020 standards (specifically, the footprint target curves for 
passenger cars and light trucks) for both programs through model year 
2026, but comment is sought on a range of alternatives.
    Statement of Need: Since finalizing the agencies' previous joint 
rulemaking in 2012 titled Final Rule for Model Year 2017 and Later 
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy Standards, and even since EPA's 2016 and early 2017 mid-term 
evaluation process, the agencies have gathered new information, and 
have performed new analysis. That new information and analysis has led 
the agencies to the tentative conclusion that holding standards 
constant at MY 2020 levels through MY 2026 is appropriate.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 7411, Clean Air Act.
    Alternatives: The preferred alternative is to retain the model year 
2020 standards (specifically, the footprint target curves for passenger 
cars and light trucks) through model year 2026, but comment is sought 
on a wide range of alternatives, including eight alternatives ranging 
in stringency from the preferred alternative to the standards currently 
in place. Those eight alternatives are: (1) The no action alternative, 
which leaves the standards as they are and were announced in 2012 for 
MYs 2021-2025; (2) Alternative 2 increases the stringency of targets 
annually during MYs 2021-2026 by 0.5% for passenger cars and 0.5% for 
light trucks; (3) Alternative 3 phases out A/C efficiency and off-cycle 
adjustments and increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 
2021-2026 by 0.5% for passenger cars and 0.5% for light trucks; (4) 
Alternative 4 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 
2021-2026 by 1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks; (5) 
Alternative 5 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 
2022-2026 by 1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks; (6) 
Alternative 6 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 
2021-2026 by 2.0% for passenger cars and 3.0% for light trucks; (7) 
Alternative 7 phases out A/C efficiency and off-cycle adjustments and 
increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2021-2026 by 
1.0% for passenger cars and 2.0% for light trucks; and (8) Alternative 
8 increases the stringency of targets annually during MYs 2022-2026 by 
2.0% for passenger cars and 3.0% for light trucks. In addition, EPA is 
requesting comment on a variety of enhanced flexibilities whereby EPA 
would make adjustments to current incentives and credits provisions and 
potentially add new flexibility opportunities to broaden the pathways 
manufacturers would have to meet standards. Such an approach would 
support the increased application of technologies that the automotive 
industry is developing and deploying that could potentially lead to 
further long-term emissions reductions and allow manufacturers to 
comply with standards while reducing costs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Compared to maintaining the post-
2020 standards set forth in 2012, NHTSA's analysis estimates that this 
proposal would result in $176 billion in societal net benefits, and 
reduce highway fatalities by 12,700 lives (over the lifetimes of 
vehicles through MY 2029). U.S. fuel consumption would increase by 
about half a million barrels per day (2-3 percent of total daily 
consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration), 
emissions would increase by 7,400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 
by 2100, and would impact the global climate by 3/1000th of one degree 
Celsius by 2100, also when compared to the standards set forth in 2012.
    Risks: The proposed rule analyzes a range of public health and 
environmental risks, including the risks of increased greenhouse gas 
emission reductions on climate change, risks of increases of criteria 
pollutants and air toxics emissions on public health and air quality, 
and the risks of increased mobile source air emissions and climate 
impacts on children's health. The proposal discusses risks associated 
with increased petroleum consumption and the need for the U.S. to 
conserve oil, as well as risks associated with vehicle safety and 
travel demand. The proposal also examines economic risks including 
impacts on employment, vehicle sales, and U.S. industry 
competitiveness.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/24/18  83 FR 42986
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/23/18  .......................
Final Rule..........................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Lieske, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, ASD, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 
734 214-4584, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AU09

EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)

Proposed Rule Stage

125. Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 
Under TSCA Section 6(H)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, TSCA 6
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, June 21, 2019, Statutory: TSCA 
section 6(h).
    Final, Statutory, December 22, 2020, Statutory: TSCA section 6(h).
    Abstract: As part of EPA's continuing efforts to implement the 
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which 
amended the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) with immediate effect 
upon its enactment on June 22, 2016, EPA is developing a proposed rule 
to implement TSCA section 6(h). TSCA section 6(h) directs EPA to issue 
regulations under section 6(a) for certain persistent, bioaccumulative, 
and toxic chemical substances that were identified in the 2014 update 
of the TSCA Work Plan. These regulations must be proposed by June 22, 
2019, and issued in final form no later than eighteen months after 
proposal. Section 6(h) further directs EPA, in selecting among the 
available prohibitions and other restrictions in TSCA section 6(a), to 
address risks of injury to health or the environment that

[[Page 57939]]

the Administrator determines are presented by the chemical substances 
and reduce exposure to the chemical substances to the extent 
practicable. EPA must develop an exposure and use assessment, but the 
statute explicitly states that a risk evaluation is not required for 
these chemical substances. EPA has identified five chemical substances 
for proposed action under TSCA section 6(h). These chemical substances 
are: Decabromodiphenyl ether; hexachlorobutadiene; 
pentachlorothiophenol; phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1), also 
known as tris(4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate; and 2,4,6-tris(tert-
butyl)phenol. Decabromodiphenyl ether is a flame retardant that has 
been widely used in textiles, plastics, adhesives and polyurethane 
foam. Hexachlorobutadiene is produced as a byproduct in the production 
of chlorinated solvents and has also been used as an absorbent for gas 
impurity removal and as an intermediate in the manufacture of rubber 
compounds. Pentachlorothiophenol is also used in the manufacture of 
rubber compounds. Phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) is a flame 
retardant and is also used in lubricants and hydraulic fluids and in 
the manufacture of other compounds. 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol is an 
antioxidant that can be used as a fuel or lubricant and as an 
intermediate in the manufacture of other compounds.
    Statement of Need: Decisions and related analysis are still in 
process and not available for this rule.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Decisions and related analysis are still in 
process and not available for this rule.
    Alternatives: Decisions and related analysis are still in process 
and not available for this rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Decisions and related analysis are 
still in process and not available for this rule.
    Risks: Decisions and related analysis are still in process and not 
available for this rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act-0#pbt.
    Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0484, 
Email: [email protected].
    Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 
7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0515, Fax: 202 566-0473, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK34

EPA--OCSPP

126. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule; 
Reconsideration of the Minimum Age Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., Federal Insecticide 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 171.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA promulgated a final rule to amend the Certification 
of Pesticide Applicators regulations at 40 CFR 171 on January 4, 2017 
(82 FR 952). The rule went into effect on March 6, 2017. In accordance 
with Executive Order 13777, EPA solicited comments in the spring of 
2017 on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement or 
modification as part of the Regulatory Reform Agenda efforts. EPA 
received comments specific to the certification rule. Based on concerns 
raised through the Regulatory Reform process, EPA announced in December 
2017 that it was beginning a process to reconsider the minimum age 
provision for the Certification rule. EPA plans to issue a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for this action.
    Statement of Need: Based on input received from stakeholders in 
part on Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, 
the Agency is proposing to amend the Certification of Pesticide 
Applicators rule (``Certification rule''), 40 CFR part 171, as revised 
January 4, 2017 (82 FR 952), by revising the minimum age requirements 
for applicators certified to use RUPs and for persons who use RUPs 
under the supervision of a certified applicator. EPA is proposing to 
defer to state or tribal minimum age requirements for commercial 
applicators, private applicators and noncertified applicators who use 
RUPs under the supervision of a certified applicator and to establish a 
federal minimum age of 16 years for all three types of applicators if 
states or tribes do not establish enforceable minimum age requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This proposal would amend the Certification 
of Pesticide Applicators rule (``Certification rule''), 40 CFR part 
171, as revised January 4, 2017 (82 FR 952).
    Alternatives: Not to propose the rule with the potential to reduce 
costs and potentially streamline regulatory burden.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: By law, some states have minimum age of 18 years of age for 
workers and would probably not change the state laws to reap the 
additional cost benefit of this rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   12/19/17  82 FR 60195
NPRM................................   01/00/19  .......................
Final Rule..........................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Sectors Affected: 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource 
and Solid Waste Management Programs; 111 Crop Production; 561710 
Exterminating and Pest Control Services; 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant 
Wholesalers; 561730 Landscaping Services; 111421 Nursery and Tree 
Production; 444220 Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Stores; 
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers; 541690 
Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services; 325320 Pesticide 
and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing; 926140 Regulation of 
Agricultural Marketing and Commodities; 541712 Research and Development 
in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology); 
115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating; 115210 Support 
Activities for Animal Production; 115310 Support Activities for 
Forestry; 321114 Wood Preservation.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety.
    URL For Public Comments: TBD.
    Agency Contact: Jeanne Kasai, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue

[[Page 57940]]

NW, Mail Code PYS1162, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-3240, Fax: 
703 308-3259, Email: [email protected].
    Ryne Yarger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 605-1193, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2070-AJ20
    RIN: 2070-AK37

EPA--OCSPP

127. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; 
Reconsideration of Several Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y, Federal Insecticide 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 170.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA published a final rule to amend the Worker Protection 
Standard (WPS) regulations at 40 CFR 170 on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 
67496). Per Executive Order 13777, EPA solicited comments in the spring 
of 2017 on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement 
or modification as part of the Regulatory Reform Agenda efforts. EPA 
received comments suggesting specific changes to the 2015-revised WPS 
requirements which are being considered within the Regulatory Agenda 
efforts. Based on concerns raised through the Regulatory Reform agenda 
process, EPA intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
for this action.
    Statement of Need: This action provides a response to comments 
received from the regulated community expressed through the Regulatory 
Reform Agenda. EPA is proposing changes to the requirements in the 
Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) related to minimum age, 
designated representative, application exclusion zone (AEZ), and entry 
restrictions for enclosed space production. EPA is also proposing a 
number of minor revisions to correct language and unintentional errors 
in the 2015 version of the rule.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This action is issued under the authority 
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 
U.S.C. 136 to 136y, particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w.
    Alternatives: Not to implement the NPRM.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: By law, some states have minimum age of 18 years of age for 
workers and would probably not change the state laws to reap the 
additional cost benefit of this rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   12/21/17  82 FR 60576
NPRM................................   01/00/19  .......................
Final Rule..........................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
    Sectors Affected: 111 Crop Production; 813312 Environment, 
Conservation and Wildlife Organizations; 115115 Farm Labor Contractors 
and Crew Leaders; 113210 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest 
Products; 813311 Human Rights Organizations; 813930 Labor Unions and 
Similar Labor Organizations; 111421 Nursery and Tree Production; 541690 
Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services; 813319 Other Social 
Advocacy Organizations; 325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural 
Chemical Manufacturing; 115114 Postharvest Crop Activities (except 
Cotton Ginning); 541712 Research and Development in the Physical, 
Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology); 115112 Soil 
Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating; 11511 Support Activities for 
Crop Production; 115310 Support Activities for Forestry; 113110 Timber 
Tract Operations.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety.
    URL For Public Comments: TBD.
    Agency Contact: Kathy Davis, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Mail Stop 7506P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7002, 
Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: [email protected].
    Ryne Yarger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 605-1193, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK43

EPA--OFFICE OF POLICY (OP)

Proposed Rule Stage

128. Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and 
Benefits in the Rulemaking Process

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA is considering developing implementing regulations 
that would increase consistency across EPA divisions and offices, 
increase reliability to affected stakeholders, and increase 
transparency during the development of regulatory actions. Many EPA 
statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, provide 
language on the consideration of benefits and costs, but these have 
historically been interpreted differently by the EPA depending on the 
office promulgating the regulatory action. This has led to EPA choosing 
different standards under the same provision of the statute, the 
regulatory community not being able to rely on consistent application 
of the statute, and EPA developing internal policies on the 
consideration of benefits and costs through non-transparent actions. 
EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in June 2018. The 
Agency is now reviewing comments received to determine if developing 
implementing regulations through a notice-and-comment rulemaking 
process or other action could provide the public with a better 
understanding on how EPA weighs benefits and costs when developing a 
regulatory action and allow the public to provide better feedback to 
EPA on potential future proposed rules.
    Statement of Need: EPA implements many environmental statutes, 
including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, etc. All these laws 
provide statutory direction for making regulatory decisions. EPA has 
applied varied and sometimes inconsistent interpretations of these 
statutory directions with respect to the consideration of costs and 
benefits in regulatory decision making. In doing so, EPA has created 
regulatory uncertainty, making planning decisions difficult and clouded 
the transparency of EPA decision making.
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPA is considering developing a 
foundational rule (or series of rules) to better clarify EPA's 
interpretation of costs and benefit

[[Page 57941]]

considerations discussed in existing statutes. The rule would be 
proposed using the existing authority provided in each of the statutes 
providing regulatory authority to EPA (e.g., Clean Air Act).
    Alternatives: Alternatives have not yet been developed for this 
action. Alternatives will be developed following review of public 
comments received on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is fundamentally different 
than regulations that place limits on pollution or otherwise clean the 
environment. It will not directly lead to changes in environmental 
quality. However, by improving the transparency and clarity of EPA's 
interpretation of when and how benefits and costs are considered in 
decision making, EPA will provide greater regulatory certainty that 
will allow regulated entities to better plan for future regulatory 
requirements. It may also enhance the utilization of benefit-cost 
analysis in decision making. EPA plans to provide a full discussion and 
exposition of anticipated benefits and costs of regulatory approaches 
if the rule(s) go forward.
    Risks: In this action, EPA is examining the role of benefits, costs 
and other economic analytic concepts play in decision making, not the 
instructions on how to conduct economic analysis as contained in OMB 
Circular A-4 or EPA's Guidelines on Performing Economic Analysis. 
Consequently, assessment of costs and benefits will be addressed under 
subsequent rulemakings developed to tackle specific pollutants.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   06/13/18  83 FR 27524
Comment Period Extended.............   07/03/18  83 FR 31098
NPRM................................   05/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Elizabeth Kopits, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Policy, Mail Code 1809T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 
566-2299, Email: [email protected].
    Ken Munis, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Mail 
Code 1104T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7353, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2010-AA12

EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)

Proposed Rule Stage

129. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal 
Combustion Residues From Electric Utilities: Amendments to the National 
Minimum Criteria (Phase 2)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906; 42 U.S.C. 6907; 42 U.S.C. 6912(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6944; 42 U.S.C. 6945(c)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 257.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA is publishing three rules (Phase One Rule Part 
One, Phase One Rule Part Two, and Phase Two Rule) to modify the final 
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal Rule, published April 17, 
2015. The EPA proposed Phase One in March 2018. The Agency then 
finalized a small number of the provisions from the Phase One proposal 
in the final rule, Phase One Part One rule, in July 2018. This rule is 
the second set of potential revisions to EPA's 2015 CCR Disposal Rule. 
In this proposed rulemaking, EPA plans to complete its review of all of 
the remaining matters raised in litigation and the petitions for 
reconsideration that were not included in the Phase One proposed rules, 
propose any revisions to those provisions determined to be warranted, 
and propose regulations for a federal CCR permit program.
    Statement of Need: On April 17, 2015, EPA finalized national 
regulations to regulate the disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) 
as solid waste under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) (2015 CCR final rule). The rule was challenged by 
several different parties, including a coalition of regulated entities 
and a coalition of public interest environmental organizations. Several 
of the claims, a subset of the provisions challenged by the industry 
and environmental petitioners, were settled on April 18, 2016. As part 
of that settlement, on April 18, 2016, EPA requested the court to 
remand these claims back to the Agency. On June 16, 2016, the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted 
EPA's motion. One claim was the subject of a rulemaking completed on 
August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51802). This proposed rule addresses some of the 
claims that were remanded back to EPA.
    In addition, in December 2016, the Water Infrastructure 
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act established new statutory 
provisions applicable to CCR units, including authorizing States to 
implement the CCR rule through an EPA-approved permit program and 
authorizing EPA to enforce the rule. In light of the legislation, EPA 
is proposing amendments for certain performance standards to provide 
flexibility to the State programs, which would be consistent with the 
WIIN Act's standard for approval of State programs. Under the WIIN Act, 
State programs require each CCR unit located in the State to achieve 
compliance with either the federal CCR rule or State criteria that EPA 
determines to be as protective as the existing federal CCR 
requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: As part of the settlement agreement 
discussed above, EPA committed to make best efforts to take final 
action on the remaining claims by December 2019.
    Alternatives: According to the terms of the settlement agreement 
discussed above, the Agency must provide public notice and opportunity 
for comment on these issues. Each of these settlement-related 
amendments is fairly narrow in scope and EPA has not identified any 
significant alternatives for analysis. Regarding the WIIN Act 
implementation amendments, one alternative would be not to include 
these additional issues in the CCR Remand proposal since they are not 
subject to a deadline.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA will provide estimates of costs 
and benefits resulting from this proposed rule once they are fully 
developed and have received Agency clearance.
    Risks: As compared with the risks to human health and the 
environment that were presented in the 2015 CCR final rule, the 
proposed amendments discussed in this action are expected to produce 
human health and environmental benefits, which will likely be described 
qualitatively.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18
Final Rule..........................   12/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/coalash.
    Agency Contact: Mary Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania

[[Page 57942]]

Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8453, 
Email: [email protected].
    Kirsten Hillyer, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land 
and Emergency Management, Mail Code 5304P, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 347-0369, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG98

EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)

Proposed Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq., Safe Drinking Water Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) reduces risks to drinking 
water consumers from lead and copper that can enter drinking water as a 
result of corrosion of plumbing materials. The LCR requires water 
systems to sample at taps in homes with leaded plumbing materials. 
Depending upon the sampling results, water systems must take actions to 
reduce exposure to lead and copper including corrosion control 
treatment, public education and lead service line replacement. The LCR 
was promulgated in 1991 and, overall, has been effective in reducing 
the levels of lead and copper in drinking water systems across the 
country. However, lead crises in Washington, DC, and Flint, Michigan, 
and the subsequent national attention focused on lead in drinking water 
in other communities, have underscored significant challenges in the 
implementation of the current rule, including a rule structure that, 
for many systems, only compels protective actions after public health 
threats have been identified. Key challenges include the rule's 
complexity; the degree of flexibility and discretion it affords systems 
and primacy states with regard to optimization of corrosion control 
treatment; compliance sampling practices, which in some cases may not 
adequately protect from lead exposure; and limited specific focus on 
key areas of concern such as schools. There is a compelling need to 
modernize and strengthen implementation of the rule--to strengthen its 
public health protections and to clarify its implementation 
requirements to make it more effective and more readily enforceable.
    Statement of Need: The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) reduces risks to 
drinking water consumers from lead and copper that can enter drinking 
water as a result of corrosion of plumbing materials. The LCR requires 
water systems to sample at taps in homes with leaded plumbing 
materials. Depending upon the sampling results, water systems must take 
actions to reduce exposure to lead and copper including corrosion 
control treatment, public education and lead service line replacement. 
The LCR was promulgated in 1991 and, overall, has been effective in 
reducing the levels of lead and copper in drinking water systems across 
the country. However, lead crises in Washington, DC, and Flint, 
Michigan, and the subsequent national attention focused on lead in 
drinking water in other communities, have underscored significant 
challenges in the implementation of the current rule, including a rule 
structure that, for many systems, only compels protective actions after 
public health threats have been identified. Key challenges include the 
rule's complexity; the degree of flexibility and discretion it affords 
systems and primacy states with regard to optimization of corrosion 
control treatment; compliance sampling practices, which in some cases 
may not adequately protect from lead exposure; and limited specific 
focus on key areas of concern such as schools. There is a compelling 
need to modernize and strengthen implementation of the rule--to 
strengthen its public health protections and to clarify its 
implementation requirements to make it more effective and more readily 
enforceable.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) includes a general authority for 
EPA to establish maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and national 
primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs). The first NPDWR for Lead 
and Copper was issued in 1991 (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991). Section 
1412(b)(9) of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA, at least 
every six years, to review and revise, as appropriate, each national 
primary drinking water regulation. Any revision of a national primary 
drinking water regulation must be promulgated in accordance with 
Section 1412, except that each revision must maintain or provide for 
greater protection of the health of persons. This rulemaking will 
revise EPA's existing Lead and Copper Rule pursuant to Section 
1412(b)(9). EPA's goal for the LCR revisions is to improve the 
effectiveness of public health protections while maintaining a rule 
that can be implemented by the 68,000 drinking water systems that are 
covered by the rule.
    Alternatives: The alternatives are to be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits are to be 
determined.
    Risks: Lead can cause serious health problems if too much enters 
your body from drinking water or other sources. It can cause damage to 
the brain and kidneys, and interfere with the production of red blood 
cells that carry oxygen to all parts of your body. The greatest risk of 
lead exposure is to infants, young children, and pregnant women. 
Scientists have linked the effects of lead on the brain with lowered IQ 
in children. Adults with kidney problems and high blood pressure can be 
affected by low levels of lead more than healthy adults. Lead is stored 
in the bones, and it can be released later in life. During pregnancy, 
the child receives lead from the mother's bones, which may affect brain 
development.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Sectors Affected: 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource 
and Solid Waste Management Programs; 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation 
Systems.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule.
    Agency Contact: Jeffrey Kempic, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, 4607M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-4880, 
Email: [email protected].
    Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-8354 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF15


[[Page 57943]]



EPA--OW

131. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Regulation of 
Perchlorate

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq., Safe Drinking Water Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, October 31, 2018, Consent Decree, 
NRDC v. EPA (No. 16 Civ. 1251, S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2016).
    Final, Judicial, December 19, 2019, Consent Decree, NRDC v. EPA 
(No. 16 Civ. 1251, S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2016).
    Abstract: A consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of New York states that EPA shall propose a 
national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) with a proposed 
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for perchlorate in drinking water 
no later than 10/31/18 and finalize a MCLG and NPDWR for perchlorate in 
drinking water no later than 12/19/19. The EPA has begun the process 
for developing a NPDWR for perchlorate. The Safe Drinking Water Act 
describes the EPA's requirements for regulating contaminants. In 
accordance with these requirements, the EPA will consider the Science 
Advisory Board's guidance on how to best interpret perchlorate health 
information to derive a MCLG for perchlorate. The agency is also 
evaluating the feasibility and affordability of treatment technologies 
to remove perchlorate from drinking water and will examine the costs 
and benefits of a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and alternative MCLs. 
The EPA is also seeking input through informal and formal processes 
from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, the Department of 
Health and Human Services, State and Tribal drinking water programs, 
the regulated community (public water systems), public health 
organizations, academia, environmental and public interest groups, and 
other interested stakeholders on a number of issues relating to the 
regulation of perchlorate.
    Statement of Need: The EPA issued a final determination to regulate 
perchlorate on February 11, 2011. The EPA's 2011 determination was 
based upon the three criteria for regulation under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act: (1) The EPA determined that perchlorate may have adverse 
effects on the health of persons based upon the National Research 
Council's study that found perchlorate inhibits the thyroid's ability 
to uptake iodide needed to produce hormones. (2) The EPA concluded that 
perchlorate occurs with frequency at levels of health concern in public 
water systems based upon data collected under the first Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) from 2001 to 2005. Monitoring 
results reported to the EPA under UCMR 1 show that perchlorate was 
measured in over four percent of water systems. (3) The EPA concluded 
that there was a meaningful opportunity to protect public health 
through a drinking water regulation by reducing perchlorate exposure 
for the 5 to 17 million people who may be served perchlorate in their 
drinking water. In 2013, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended 
that the EPA use models, rather than the traditional approach to 
establish the health-based maximum contaminant level goal for a 
perchlorate regulation. The EPA and FDA scientists worked 
collaboratively to develop biological models in accordance with SAB 
recommendations. The EPA completed peer review of this analysis in 
March 2018. The EPA will utilize the best available, peer-reviewed 
science to inform regulatory decisionmaking for perchlorate.
    Summary of Legal Basis: On October 18, 2016, the U.S. District 
Court for the Southern District of New York entered a consent decree, 
which requires the EPA to sign, for publication in the Federal 
Register, a proposed MCLG and NPDWR for perchlorate by October 30, 2018 
and issue a final MCLG and NPDWR by December 19, 2019. See NRDC v. EPA, 
No. 16 Civ. 1251 (S.D.N.Y.). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 
section 1412(b)(1)(A), requires the EPA to make a determination whether 
to regulate at least five contaminants from its Contaminant Candidate 
List every 5 years. Once the EPA makes a determination to regulate a 
contaminant in drinking water, SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(E) requires the 
EPA to issue a proposed maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and 
national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) within 24 months and 
a final MCLG and NPDWR within 18 months of proposal (with an 
opportunity for one 9-month extension). The EPA made a determination to 
regulate perchlorate in drinking water on February 11, 2011.
    Alternatives: The alternatives will be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs and benefits 
will be determined.
    Risks: Perchlorate competes with iodide for transport into the 
thyroid gland, which is a necessary step in the production of thyroid 
hormones. Therefore, perchlorate may lead to decreases in levels of 
these hormones. Thyroid hormones are essential to the growth and 
development of fetuses, infants, and young children, as well as to 
metabolism and energy regulation throughout the life span. Primary 
pathways for human exposure to perchlorate are ingestion of 
contaminated food and drinking water.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18
Final Rule..........................   12/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0297.
    Sectors Affected: 924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource 
and Solid Waste Management Programs; 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation 
Systems.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/perchlorate-drinking-water.
    Agency Contact:
    Samuel Hernandez, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 
1200 Pennyslvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4607M, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 564-1735, Email: [email protected].
    Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-8354, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF28

EPA--OW

132. Revised Definition of ``Waters of the United States''

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 110; 40 CFR 112; 40 CFR 116; 40 CFR 117; 40 
CFR 122; 40 CFR 230; 40 CFR 232; 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 401.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Department of the Army (the agencies) published the Clean Water Rule: 
``Definition of Waters of the United States (2015 Rule) (80 FR 37054, 
June 29, 2015).'' On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 Rule nationwide pending further action of

[[Page 57944]]

the court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 
13778, Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by 
Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule,'','' which instructed 
the agencies to review the 2015 rule and rescind or replace it as 
appropriate and consistent with law. The agencies are publishing this 
proposed rule to follow the first step, which sought to recodify the 
definition of ``waters of the United States'' that existed prior to the 
2015 rule. In this second step, the agencies are conducting a 
substantive reevaluation and revision of the definition of waters of 
the United States'' in accordance with the Executive Order.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking action responds to the February 
28, 2017, Presidential Executive Order: Restoring the Rule of Law, 
Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ``Waters of the United 
States'' Rule. To meet the objectives of the Executive order, the EPA 
and Department of the Army (Agencies) are engaged in an comprehensive, 
two-step rulemaking process. This action follows the first step to 
recodify the pre-existing definition of ``waters of the United 
States.'' In this second step, the Agencies are conducting a 
reconsideration of the definition of ``waters of the United States'' 
consistent with the E.O.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The rule is proposed under the Clean Water 
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    Alternatives: Alternatives have not yet been developed at this 
time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: An economic analysis analyzing 
anticipated costs and benefits will be developed for the rulemaking at 
the time of proposal.
    Risks: This action does not establish an environmental standard 
intended to address environmental or health risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18
Final Rule..........................   09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Michael McDavit, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-2428, Email: [email protected].
    Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 566-0657, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF75

EPA--OW

133. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam 
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1361; 33 U.S.C. 1342; 33 U.S.C. 1318; 33 
U.S.C. 1317; 33 U.S.C. 1316; 33 U.S.C. 1311; 33 U.S.C. 1314
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 423.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA received petitions from the Utility Water Act Group 
and the U.S. Small Business Administration requesting reconsideration 
and an administrative stay of provisions of EPA's final rule titled 
``Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric 
Power Generating Point Source Category,'' (80 FR 67838; November 3, 
2015). After considering the petitions, the Administrator decided that 
it is appropriate and in the public interest to conduct a rulemaking 
that may result in revisions to the new, more stringent Best Available 
Technology Economically Achievable effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards for existing sources in the 2015 rule that apply 
to bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization wastewater. 
EPA does not intend in this rulemaking to revise the BAT effluent 
limitations or pretreatment standards in the 2015 rule for fly ash 
transport water, flue gas mercury control wastewater, gasification 
wastewater, or any of the other requirements in the 2015 rule. As part 
of the rulemaking process, EPA will provide notice and an opportunity 
for public comment on any proposed revisions to the 2015 final rule.
    Statement of Need: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA intends to 
undertake a rulemaking that may result in revisions to certain Best 
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) effluent limitations 
and pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for the steam 
electric power generating point source category, which were published 
in the Federal Register on November 3, 2015.
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPA intends to propose this rule under the 
authority of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the 
CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
    Alternatives: The alternatives are to be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The associated costs and benefits 
for the regulatory options are to be determined.
    Risks: The associated risks are to be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/19  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819. https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines.
    Agency Contact: Richard Benware, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, Mail Code 4303T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-
1369, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2040-AF14, Related to 2040-AF76
    RIN: 2040-AF77

EPA--OW

134. Peak Flows Management

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311; 33 U.S.C. 1314
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 122.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Wet weather events (e.g., rain, snowmelt) can affect 
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) operations when excess water 
enters the wastewater collection system. The increased wet weather 
flows can exceed the POTW treatment plant's capacity to provide the 
same type of treatment for all of the incoming wastewater. The 
treatment plant's secondary treatment units are the most likely to be 
adversely affected by wet weather because the biological systems can be 
damaged when too much water flows through them. POTWs employ a variety 
of operational practices to ensure the integrity of their secondary 
treatment units during wet weather. This update to the regulations will 
seek to clarify permitting procedures so as to provide POTWs with 
separate sanitary sewer systems flexibility in how they manage and 
treat peak flows under wet weather conditions. These updates will also 
seek to ensure a consistent national approach for permitting POTWs that 
allows efficient treatment plant operation while

[[Page 57945]]

protecting the public from potential adverse health effects of 
inadequately treated wastewater.
    Statement of Need: This update to the regulations will seek to 
clarify permitting procedures for POTW treatment plants with separate 
storm sewer systems under wet weather operational conditions. These 
updates will also seek to ensure a consistent national approach for 
permitting POTWs that provides for efficient treatment plant operation 
while protecting the public from potential adverse health effects of 
inadequately treated wastewater.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The rule will be proposed under the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 33 U.S.C. 1314.
    Alternatives: Alternatives have not yet been developed at this 
time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost analysis analyzing 
anticipated costs and benefits will be developed for the rulemaking at 
the time of proposal.
    Risks: The agencies will be able to analyze the risks of the 
proposed rulemaking once policy decisions have been made.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/00/19  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/20  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Jamie Piziali, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 564-1438, Email: [email protected].
    Lisa Biddle, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 
4303T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 
566-0350, Fax: 202 566-1053, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF81

EPA--OW

135.  Clean Water Act Section 404(C) Regulatory Revision

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: ``Not Yet Determined''
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 230.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the 
Administrator ``to prohibit the specification (including withdrawal of 
the specification) of any defined area as a disposal site'' as well as 
to ``deny or restrict the use of any defined area for specification 
(including the withdrawal of specification) as a disposal site . . . 
whenever he determines, after notice and opportunity for public 
hearings, that the discharge of such materials into such area will have 
an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish 
beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), 
wildlife, or recreational areas.'' This rulemaking will consider, at 
minimum, changes to EPA's 404(c) review process that would govern the 
future use of EPA's section 404(c) authority.
    Statement of Need: The EPA's regulations governing CWA Section 
404(c) are being revisited to reflect today's permitting process and 
modern-day methods and protections, including the robust ex siting 
processes under the National Environmental Policy Act that requires 
federal agencies to consider the environmental and related social and 
economic effects of their proposed actions while providing 
opportunities for public review and comment on those evaluations. The 
updated regulations have the opportunity for increasing certainty for 
landowners, investors, businesses and entrepreneurs to make investment 
decisions while preserving the EPA's authority to restrict discharges 
of dredge or fill material that will have an unacceptable adverse 
effect on water supplies, recreation, fisheries and wildlife.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Water Act (CWA) 404(c).
    Alternatives: The alternatives will be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs and benefits 
will be determined.
    Risks: The associated risks will be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Brian Frazer, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1652, Fax: 
202 566-1349, Email: [email protected].
    Russell Kaiser, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0963, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF88

EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)

Final Rule Stage

136. Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Sulfur Oxides

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, May 25, 2018, Signed by 5/25/2018. 
Final, Judicial, January 28, 2019, Signed by 1/28/2019.
    Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA is 
required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality criteria 
and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On 
June 22, 2010, EPA published a final rule to revise the primary 
(health-based) NAAQS for Sulfur Oxides to provide increased protection 
for public health. This review of the 2010 NAAQS includes the 
preparation by EPA of an Integrated Review Plan, an Integrated Science 
Assessment, a Risk/Exposure Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment 
Document, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public. These documents inform the 
Administrator's proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the 
current standard. This proposed decision was published in the Federal 
Register with opportunity provided for public comment. The 
Administrator's final decisions will take into consideration these 
documents, CASAC advice, 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 and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 
years. On June 22, 2010, EPA published a final rule to revise the 
primary (health-based) NAAQS for sulfur oxides to provide increased 
protection for public health.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 
EPA is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality 
criteria and the primary (health-based) national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
    Alternatives: The main alternative for the Administrator's decision 
on the review of the primary (health-based) national ambient air 
quality standard for sulfur oxides (SOX) is whether to 
retain or revise the existing standard.

[[Page 57946]]

    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that 
the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards is 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. Because this 
action does not propose to change the existing primary NAAQS for 
SOX, it does not impose costs or benefits relative to the 
baseline of continuing with the current NAAQS in effect. EPA has thus 
not prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis for this action.
    Risks: As part of this review, the EPA prepared an Integrated 
Review Plan, an Integrated Science Assessment, 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 will inform the Administrator's decision as to 
whether to retain or revise the standards. The proposed decision was 
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................................   06/08/18  83 FR 26752
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   06/21/18  83 FR 28843
Final Rule..........................   01/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Nicole Hagan, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C504-
06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541-3153, Email: 
[email protected].
    Karen Wesson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C504-06, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-3515, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AT68

EPA--OAR

137. Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2019 and Biomass-Based Diesel 
(BBD) Volume for 2020

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
that specify the annual volume requirements for renewable fuels under 
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to be set for 
four different categories of renewable fuels: cellulosic biofuel, 
biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The 
statute requires that the standards be finalized by November 30 of the 
year prior to the year in which the standards would apply. In the case 
of biomass-based diesel, the statute requires applicable volumes to be 
set no later than 14 months prior to the year for which the 
requirements would apply.
    Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate 
regulations that specify the annual volume requirements for renewable 
fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The statute 
requires that the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year 
prior to the year in which the standards would apply. In the case of 
biomass-based diesel, the statute requires applicable volumes to be set 
no later than 14 months prior to the year for which the requirements 
would apply.
    Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 211(o).
    Alternatives: EPA requested comment on using the general waiver 
authority to reduce the required volumes for advanced and total 
renewable fuel in the proposed rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Anticipated costs were developed for 
the proposed rule ($380-$740 million). Costs and benefits of this 
rulemaking are highly complex given the nature of the program and the 
standards being categorically nested under a total volume standard. An 
updated estimate of the costs, based on a number of illustrative 
assumptions, will be provided in the final rule.
    Risks: Environmental assessments are primarily addressed under 
another section of the CAA (Section 204). EPA released an updated 
report to Congress on June 29, 2018. More information on this report 
can be found at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=341491.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   07/03/18  83 FR 31098
NPRM................................   07/10/18  83 FR 32024
Final Rule..........................   11/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact:
    Dallas Burkholder, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 
and Radiation, N26, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4766, Email: 
[email protected].
    Tia Sutton, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 564-8929, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AT93

EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)

Final Rule Stage

138. Review of Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition of Lead-
Based Paint

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2681, TSCA 401; 15 U.S.C. 2682; 15 
U.S.C. 2683, TSCA 403; 15 U.S.C. 2684
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 745.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, June 22, 2018, NPRM issuance 
ordered within 90 days of the date that the 9th Circuit's decision 
becomes final.
    Final, Judicial, June 22, 2019, The December 27, 2017, decision of 
the Ninth Circuit ordered ``that EPA promulgate the final rule within 
one year after the promulgation of the proposed rule . . . .''.
    Abstract: EPA is reviewing existing regulatory dust-lead hazard 
standards for target housing and Child Occupied Facilities (COFs), and 
the definition of lead-based paint for non-target housing. On March 6, 
1996, the EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
issued a joint final

[[Page 57947]]

regulation that, under section 401 of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA), adopted the statutory definition of lead-based paint as ``paint 
or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 
1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.'' On 
January 5, 2001, EPA issued a final regulation that, under section 403 
of the TSCA, established regulatory dust-lead hazard standards of 40 
[mu]g/ft2 for floors and 250 [mu]g/ft2 for 
interior window sills. On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition 
requesting that EPA take action to lower EPA's regulatory dust-lead 
hazard standards and the definition of lead-based paint. On October 22, 
2009, EPA responded to the petition, agreeing to initiate a proceeding 
to determine whether the dust-lead hazard standards, and the definition 
of lead-based paint for non-target housing should be revised. On August 
24, 2016, advocates filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking the court to compel EPA 
to make these revisions. The proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register on July 2, 2018, and was issued in compliance with the 
December 27, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit, and the subsequent 
March 26, 2018, order that directed the EPA ``to issue a proposed rule 
within ninety (90) days from the filed date of this order.'' Scientific 
advances made since the promulgation of the 2001 rule clearly 
demonstrate that exposure to low levels of lead result in adverse 
health effects. Moreover, since CDC has stated that no safe level of 
lead in blood has been identified, the reductions in children's blood 
lead levels as a result of this rule would help reduce the risk of 
adverse cognitive and developmental effects in children. Therefore, EPA 
proposed to change the dust-lead hazard standards from 40 [mu]g/
ft2 and 250 [mu]g/ft2 to 10 [mu]g/ft2 
and 100 [mu]g/ft2 on floors and window sills, respectively. 
These standards apply to most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied 
facilities, such as day care centers and kindergarten facilities. In 
addition, EPA proposed to make no change to the definition of lead-
based paint because the Agency currently lacks sufficient information 
to support such a change.
    Statement of Need: The proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register on July 2, 2018, and was issued in compliance with the 
December 27, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit, and the subsequent 
March 26, 2018, order that directed the EPA ``to issue a proposed rule 
within ninety (90) days from the filed date of this order.''
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPA is proposing this rule under sections 
401, 402, 403, and 404 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 
U.S.C. 2601 et seq., as amended by title X of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint 
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Title X) (Pub. L. 102-550).
    Alternatives: EPA intends to finalize a rulemaking identifying 
hazardous levels of lead in dust on floors and window sills. While EPA 
has proposed standards of 10 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/
ft2 for floors and window sills respectively, EPA is 
encouraging public comment on the full range of candidate standards 
analyzed in the associated Technical Support Document as alternatives 
to the proposal, including the option not to change the current 
standard. EPA has also specifically requested comment on an option that 
would reduce the floor dust standard but leave the sill dust standard 
unchanged (e.g., 20 mg/ft2 for floors and 250 mg/
ft2 for window sills, or 10 mg/ft2 for floors and 
250 mg/ft2 for window sills), since reducing floor dust lead 
has the greatest impact on children's health.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs. This rule is estimated to 
result in costs of $66 million to $119 million per year. Benefits. This 
rule would reduce exposure to lead, resulting in benefits from avoided 
adverse health effects. For the subset of adverse health effects where 
the results were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits are $317 
million to $2.24 billion per year using a 3% discount rate, and $68 
million to $479 million using a 7% discount rate. There are additional 
unquantified benefits due to other avoided adverse health effects in 
children, including attention-related behavioral problems, greater 
incidence of problem behaviors, decreased cognitive performance, 
reduced post-natal growth, delayed puberty and decreased kidney 
function.
    Risks: This rulemaking addresses the risk of adverse health effects 
associated with lead dust exposures in children living in pre-1978 
housing and child-occupied facilities, as well as associated potential 
health effects in this subpopulation.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/02/18  83 FR 30889
Final Rule..........................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166.
    Sectors Affected: 541350 Building Inspection Services; 624410 Child 
Day Care Services; 236 Construction of Buildings; 611110 Elementary and 
Secondary Schools; 541330 Engineering Services; 611519 Other Technical 
and Trade Schools; 531 Real Estate; 562910 Remediation Services; 238 
Specialty Trade Contractors.
    URL For More Information: https://www2.epa.gov/lead.
    Agency Contact:
    John Yowell, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 564-1213, Email: [email protected].
    Marc Edmonds, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 
7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0758, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ82

EPA--OCSPP

139. Service Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances 
Control Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Regulatory.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 2625 TSCA 26
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 700-791.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: As amended in June 2016, section 26(b)(1) of the Toxic 
Substance Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to issue a rule to 
establish fees to defray the cost (including contractor costs incurred 
by the Agency) associated with administering sections 4, 5, and 6, and 
collecting, processing, reviewing, and providing access to and 
protecting from disclosure information on chemical substances as 
appropriate under section 14. EPA issued a proposed rule in February 
2018 and is planning to issue a final rule in September 2018, with 
immediate effect to enable the collection of fees beginning in October 
2018.
    Statement of Need: The fees are intended to achieve the goals 
articulated by Congress to provide a sustainable source of funds for 
EPA to fulfill its legal obligations to conduct activities such as 
risk-based screenings, designation of applicable substances as High- 
and Low-Priority, conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a 
chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or 
the environment, requiring testing of chemical substances and mixtures, 
and

[[Page 57948]]

evaluating and reviewing manufacturing and processing notices, as 
required under TSCA sections 4, 5 and 6, as well as management of 
chemical information under TSCA section 14.
    Summary of Legal Basis: TSCA section 26(b), 15 U.S.C. 2625(b), 
provides EPA with authority to establish fees to defray a portion of 
the costs associated with administering TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6, as 
amended, as well as the costs of collecting, processing, reviewing, and 
providing access to and protecting information about chemical 
substances from disclosure as appropriate under TSCA section 14.
    Alternatives: Alternative approaches were considered in developing 
the proposed rule (see 83 FR 8212, Unit III.C, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/26/2018-02928/user-fees-for-the-administration-of-the-toxic-substances-control-act) and are being 
further considered in light of comments received on the proposed rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA has evaluated the potential 
incremental economic impacts of the proposed rule. The Agency analyzed 
a three-year period, since the statute requires EPA to reevaluate and 
adjust, as necessary, the fees every three years. The Economic 
Analysis, which is available in the docket for the proposed rule (EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2016-0401, ref. 2), is briefly summarized here. The annualized 
fees collected from industry for the proposed option (identified as 
Option C in the Economic Analysis) are approximately $20.05 million. 
This total does not include the fees collected for manufacturer-
requested risk evaluations. Total fee collections were calculated by 
multiplying the estimated number of actions per fee category 
anticipated each year, by the corresponding proposed fee. For the 
proposed option, TSCA section 4 fees account for less than 1 percent of 
the total fee collection, TSCA section 5 fees for approximately 43 
percent, and TSCA section 6 fees for approximately 56 percent. Annual 
fees collected by EPA are expected to total approximately $20.05 
million. Under the proposed option, the total fees collected from 
industry for a risk evaluation requested by manufacturers are estimated 
to be $1.3 million for chemicals included in the Work Plan and $2.6 
million for chemicals not included in the Work Plan. EPA estimates that 
18.5 percent of TSCA section 5 submissions will be from small 
businesses that are eligible to pay discounted fees because they have 
average annual sales of less than $91 million in the three preceding 
years. Total annualized fees for TSCA section 5 collected from small 
businesses are estimated to be $550,000. For TSCA sections 4 and 6, 
discounted fees for eligible small businesses and fees for all other 
affected firms may differ over the three-year period that was analyzed, 
since the fee paid by each firm is dependent on the number of affected 
firms per action. Based on past TSCA section 4 actions and data related 
to the first ten chemicals identified for risk evaluations under TSCA 
as amended, EPA estimates annualized fees collected from small 
businesses for TSCA section 4 and TSCA section 6 to be approximately 
$37,000 and $2.6 million, respectively. EPA estimates that total fees 
paid by small businesses will account for about 16 percent of the 
approximately $20.05 million fees to be collected for TSCA sections 4, 
5, and 6 actions. The annualized total industry fee collection for 
small businesses is estimated to be approximately $3.2 million.
    Risks: n/a.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/26/18  83 FR 8212
Notice..............................   04/24/18  83 FR 17782
Final Rule..........................   10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401. A summary 
of the recent amendments to TSCA is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/.
    URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Mark Hartman, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code: 7503P, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-0734, Email: [email protected].
    Hans Scheifele, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 564-3122, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK27

EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)

Final Rule Stage

140. Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 151.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, June 16, 2018, Sign by no later 
than June 16, 2018 and within 15 days thereafter transmit to the 
Federal Register.
    Final, Judicial, August 25, 2019, Sign by no later than 14 months 
after publication of NPRM (NPRM was published on June 25, 2018) & 
within 15 days thereafter transmit to the Federal Register.
    Abstract: As a result of a consent decree, the EPA has issued a 
proposed rule that addresses the prevention of hazardous substance 
discharges under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 
This section directs the President to issue regulations to prevent 
discharges of oil and hazardous substances from onshore and offshore 
facilities, and to contain such discharges. The EPA assessed the 
consequences of hazardous substance discharges into the nation's 
waters, and evaluated the costs and benefits of potential preventive 
regulatory requirements for facilities handling such substances. Based 
on an analysis of the frequency and impacts of reported CWA hazardous 
substances discharges and the existing framework of EPA regulatory 
requirements, the Agency is not proposing additional regulatory 
requirements at this time.
    Statement of Need: CWA 311(j)(1)(C) provides that the President 
``[establish] procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements 
for equipment to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous substances 
from vessels and from onshore and offshore facilities, and to contain 
such discharges . . .'' EPA was delegated authority for regulating 
onshore facilities under CWA 311(j)(1)(C) by Executive Order 12777, and 
was redelegated authority for regulating offshore facilities landward 
of the coastline under CWA 311(j)(1)(C) by the Department of the 
Interior. See 40 CFR 112, appendix A.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In 2015, the EPA was sued for failure to 
finalize a rulemaking for chemicals under the CWA 311(j)(1)(C). This 
litigation was settled and a consent decree was filed

[[Page 57949]]

with the court in February 2016 (Environmental Justice Health Alliance 
for Chemical Policy Reform v. U.S. EPA). The EPA is conducting this 
rulemaking in accordance with the consent decree and proposed rule on 
June 25, 2018, and intends to have the Administrator sign a final rule 
by August 25, 2019.
    Alternatives: The Agency considered three alternatives. The first 
alternatives was to establish a prevention program that included nine 
regulatory elements aimed at preventing CWA HS discharges. The second 
alternative was to establish a targeted approach that selects a limited 
set of requirements designed to prevent CWA hazardous substances 
discharges. This regulatory option could establish targeted 
requirements under one or more of the nine program elements under the 
first option; however, four elements are specifically identified and 
discussed. The third, and proposed alternative, establishes no new 
requirements under the authority of CWA 311(j)(1)(C).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Since the proposed action 
recommended no new regulatory requirements, it neither imposes 
incremental costs nor provides incremental environmental protection 
benefits.
    Risks: The proposed action recommended no new regulatory 
requirements; therefore, EPA anticipates no changes in risk as a result 
of this action. In the 40 years since CWA section 311(j)(1)(C) was 
enacted by Congress, multiple statutory and regulatory requirements 
have been established under different Federal authorities that 
generally serve to, directly and indirectly, prevent CWA hazardous 
substances discharges.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/25/18  83 FR 29499
Final Rule..........................   09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024.
    Sectors Affected: 72 Accommodation and Food Services; 924 
Administration of Environmental Quality Programs; 56 Administrative and 
Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services; 312 Beverage and 
Tobacco Product Manufacturing; 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 111 Crop 
Production; 61 Educational Services; 311 Food Manufacturing; 316 
Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing; 423 Merchant Wholesalers, 
Durable Goods; 424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods; 212 Mining 
(except Oil and Gas); 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing; 
211 Oil and Gas Extraction; 322 Paper Manufacturing; 324 Petroleum and 
Coal Products Manufacturing; 326 Plastics and Rubber Products 
Manufacturing; 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; 44-
45 Retail Trade; 115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry; 
313 Textile Mills; 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing; 221 Utilities; 
493 Warehousing and Storage; 321 Wood Product Manufacturing.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov.rulemaking-preventing-hazardous-substance-spills.
    URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024.
    Agency Contact: Gregory Wilson, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 564-7989, Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG87

EPA--OLEM

141. Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management 
Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Reconsideration of Amendments

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in 
the Federal Register on January 13, 2017, a final rule to amend the 
Risk Management Program regulations under the Clean Air Act. Prior to 
the rule becoming effective, EPA received three petitions for 
reconsideration that raised concerns with provisions of the final rule. 
EPA subsequently delayed the effective date of the final rule via 
notice and comment rulemaking to February 19, 2019, in order to conduct 
a reconsideration proceeding. On May 30, 2018, EPA published proposed 
changes to the final rule to address specific issues to be reconsidered 
and other issues that the Agency believes warrant additional public 
comment.
    Statement of Need: On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule 
(82 FR 4594) amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention 
provisions under section 112(r) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The 
amendments addressed various aspects of risk management programs, 
including prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response 
preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other 
changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the 
underlying rules. Prior to the rule taking effect, EPA received three 
petitions for reconsideration of the rule under CAA section 
307(d)(7)(B), two from industry groups and one from a group of states. 
Under that provision, the Administrator is to commence a 
reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the 
petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to 
raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection 
arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial 
review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude that the 
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. In a 
letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator responded to the first 
of the reconsideration petitions received by announcing the convening 
of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program 
Amendments. As explained in that letter, having considered the 
objections raised in the petition, the Administrator determined that 
the criteria for reconsideration have been met for at least one of the 
objections. This proposal addresses the issues raised in all three 
petitions for reconsideration, as well as other issues that EPA 
believes warrant reconsideration.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Agency's procedures in this rulemaking 
are controlled by CAA section 307(d). The statutory authority for this 
action is provided by section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7412(r)). Each of the portions of the Risk Management Program rule we 
propose to modify in this document are based on section 112(r) of the 
CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). EPA's authority for convening a 
reconsideration proceeding for certain issues is found under CAA 
section 307(d)(7)(B) or 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B).
    Alternatives: EPA's primary proposal would rescind almost all the 
requirements added under the RMP Amendments rule to the accident 
prevention provisions program of subparts C (for program 2 processes) 
and D (for program 3 processes), and associated definitions, as well as 
the Amendments rule requirements in subpart H for providing to the 
public, upon request, chemical hazard information and access to 
community emergency preparedness information.

[[Page 57950]]

The proposal would also modify the amendments rule provisions in 
subpart E for local emergency response coordination and emergency 
exercises, as well as the provisions in subpart H for public meetings 
after accidents. EPA has also requested public comment on various 
alternatives, including retaining certain minor changes made to the 
subparts C and D prevention programs relating to hazard reviews, 
incident investigations, training, and others, as well as alternatives 
to the proposed changes to the local coordination and emergency 
exercise provisions.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In total, EPA estimates annualized 
cost savings of $87.9 million at a 3% discount rate and $88.4 million 
at a 7% discount rate. Most of the annual cost savings under the 
proposed rule are due to the repeal of the STAA provision (annual 
savings of $70 million), followed by third-party audits (annual savings 
of $9.8 million), rule familiarization (annual net savings of $3.7 
million), information availability (annual savings of $3.1 million), 
and root-cause incident investigation (annual savings of $1.8 million). 
The RMP Amendments Rule produced a variety of non-monetized benefits 
from prevention and mitigation of future RMP and non-RMP accidents at 
RMP facilities, avoided catastrophes at RMP facilities, and easier 
access to facility chemical hazard information. The proposed 
Reconsideration rule would largely retain the revised local emergency 
coordination and exercise provisions of the 2017 Amendments final rule, 
which convey mitigation benefits. The proposed rescission of the 
prevention program requirements (i.e., third-party audits, incident 
investigation, STAA), may result in a reduction of these benefits. The 
proposed rescission of the chemical hazard information availability 
provision may result in a reduction of the information sharing benefit, 
although the public meeting, emergency coordination and exercise 
provisions would still convey a portion of this qualitative benefit. 
However, the proposed rulemaking would convey the benefit of improved 
chemical site security, by modifying previously open-ended information 
sharing provisions of the Amendments rule that might have resulted in 
an increased risk of terrorism against regulated sources.
    Risks: The chemical accident prevention provisions of Clean Air Act 
section 112(r) and 40 CFR part 68 address the acute risks to human 
health and the environment associated with the accidental release of 
highly toxic and flammable chemicals. Approximately 12,500 U.S. 
facilities are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 68, and much of 
the U.S. population resides in a community containing one or more such 
facilities. EPA believes that the existing part 68 provisions have been 
successful in reducing the frequency and severity of accidental 
chemical releases from covered facilities. The RMP Amendments Rule 
produced a variety of benefits from prevention and mitigation of future 
RMP and non-RMP accidents at RMP facilities, avoided catastrophes at 
RMP facilities, and easier access to facility chemical hazard 
information and accident history. The proposed rule would largely 
retain the revised local emergency coordination and exercise provisions 
of the 2017 Amendments final rule, which convey mitigation benefits. If 
a chemical accident or major catastrophe occurs, mitigating its impacts 
benefits society by reducing the number of fatalities and injuries, 
reducing the magnitude of property damage and lost productivity both 
on-site and off-site, and reducing the extent of public evacuations, 
sheltering, and expenditure of emergency response resources. These 
retained provisions along with public meetings also produce benefits by 
improving the information going to emergency planners, responders, and 
the public. The proposed reconsideration of the prevention program 
requirements, as well as certain information disclosure provisions in 
the RMP Amendments Rule may result in a reduction in prevention and 
information benefits, relative to the baseline post-2017 Amendments 
rule. However, as noted above, there may be an increase in security 
benefits by limiting information sharing, which might result in an 
increased risk of terrorism against regulated facilities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/30/18  83 FR 24850
Notice..............................   07/24/18  83 FR 34967
Correction..........................   07/31/18  83 FR 36837
Final Rule..........................   01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 49313 Farm Product 
Warehousing and Storage; 42491 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers; 
311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing; 311 Food Manufacturing; 221112 Fossil 
Fuel Electric Power Generation; 311411 Frozen Fruit, Juice, and 
Vegetable Manufacturing; 49311 General Warehousing and Storage; 31152 
Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing; 311612 Meat Processed from 
Carcasses; 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction; 32519 Other Basic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 42469 Other Chemical and Allied 
Products Merchant Wholesalers; 49319 Other Warehousing and Storage; 322 
Paper Manufacturing; 42471 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; 32411 
Petroleum Refineries; 311615 Poultry Processing; 49312 Refrigerated 
Warehousing and Storage; 22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities; 11511 
Support Activities for Crop Production; 22131 Water Supply and 
Irrigation Systems.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/rmp.
    URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
    Agency Contact:
    Jim Belke, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and 
Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-8023, Email: [email protected].
    Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and 
Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7987, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG95

EPA--OLEM

142.  Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of 
Coal Combustion Residues From Electric Utilities: Amendments to the 
National Minimum Criteria (Phase 1, Part 2)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906; 42 U.S.C. 6907; 42 U.S.C. 6912(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6944; 42 U.S.C. 6945(c)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 257.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, June 14, 2019, Issue a final rule 
3 years after settlement agreement date (6/14/2016).
    Abstract: The EPA published a proposed rule, Phase One rule in 
March 2018, to modify the final Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) 
Disposal Rule, published April 17, 2015. Issues covered in the proposed 
rule included the height limitation of the vegetative slopes of dikes; 
the type and magnitude

[[Page 57951]]

of non-groundwater releases that would require a facility to comply 
with some or all of the corrective action procedures set forth in the 
final CCR rule; and adding boron to the list of contaminants in 
Appendix IV of the final CCR rule that trigger the corrective action 
requirements under the final rule. The Agency is addressing these 
issues in two final rules; this action is the second of the final 
rules. The first final rule, Phase One Part One rule was published in 
July 2018. Within the Phase One Part One rule, the EPA finalized a 
small number of provisions from the March 2018 Phase One proposed rule. 
If finalized as proposed, the Phase One Part Two rule would address 
specific technical issues consistent with a settlement agreement to 
resolve issues raised in litigation of the final CCR rule. Furthermore, 
in this rule, the Agency is considering provisions that establish 
alternative performance standards for owners and operators of CCR units 
located in states that have approved CCR permit programs, as well as 
other potential revisions based on comments received since the date of 
the final CCR rule and petitions for rulemaking that were granted on 
September 13, 2017.
    Statement of Need: On April 17, 2015, EPA finalized national 
regulations to regulate the disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) 
as solid waste under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) (2015 CCR final rule). The rule was challenged by 
several different parties, including a coalition of regulated entities 
and a coalition of public interest environmental organizations. Several 
of the claims, a subset of the provisions challenged by the industry 
and environmental petitioners, were settled on April 18, 2016. As part 
of that settlement, on April 18, 2016, EPA requested the court to 
remand these claims back to the Agency. On June 16, 2016, the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted 
EPA's motion. One claim was the subject of a rulemaking completed on 
August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51802). This proposed rule addresses the 
remaining claims that were remanded back to EPA.
    In addition, in December 2016, the Water Infrastructure 
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act established new statutory 
provisions applicable to CCR units, including authorizing States to 
implement the CCR rule through an EPA-approved permit program and 
authorizing EPA to enforce the rule. In light of the legislation, EPA 
is proposing amendments for certain performance standards to provide 
flexibility to the State programs, which would be consistent with the 
WIIN Act's standard for approval of State programs. State programs 
require each CCR unit located in the State to achieve compliance with 
either the federal CCR rule or State criteria that EPA determines to be 
as protective as the existing federal CCR requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: As part of the settlement agreement 
discussed above, EPA committed to make best efforts to take final 
action on the remaining claims by June 14, 2019.
    Alternatives: According to the terms of the settlement agreement 
discussed above, the Agency must provide public notice and opportunity 
for comment on these issues. Each of these settlement-related 
amendments is fairly narrow in scope and EPA has not identified any 
significant alternatives for analysis. Regarding the WIIN Act 
implementation amendments, one alternative would be not to include 
these additional issues in the CCR remand proposal since they are not 
subject to a deadline.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: EPA will provide estimates of costs 
and benefits resulting from this proposed rule once they are fully 
developed and have received Agency clearance.
    Risks: As compared with the risks to human health and the 
environment that were presented in the 2015 CCR final rule, the 
proposed amendments discussed in this action are not expected to impact 
the overall conclusions in the 2015 final rule. As a result, the Agency 
believes these amendments, if finalized as proposed, would be 
protective of human health and the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/15/18  83 FR 11584
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/30/18
Final Rule..........................   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0286. Linked to 
2050-AG88.
    Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/coalash.
    URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0286.
    Agency Contact: Kirsten Hillyer, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Land and Emergency Management, Mail Code 5304P, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 347-0369, 
Email: [email protected].
    Jesse Miller, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and 
Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5303P, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-1180, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2050-AG88
    RIN: 2050-AH01

EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)

Final Rule Stage

143. Definition of ``Waters of the United States''--Recodification of 
Preexisting Rule

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 110; 40 CFR 112; 40 CFR 116; 40 CFR 117; 40 
CFR 122; 40 CFR 230; 40 CFR 232; 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 401.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Department of the Army (the agencies) published the Clean Water Rule: 
Definition of ``Waters of the United States'' (2015 Rule) 80 FR 37054, 
June 29, 2015). On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 Rule nationwide pending further action of 
the court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 
13778, Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by 
reviewing the ``Waters of the United States'' Rule, which instructed 
the agencies to review the 2015 rule and rescind or replace it as 
appropriate and consistent with law. The agencies published a proposed 
rule to initiate the first step in a comprehensive, two-step process 
consistent with the Executive order. In this first step, the agencies 
sought to recodify the definition of ``Waters of the United States'' 
that existed prior to the 2015 Rule. This rule for the first step will 
now be finalized.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking action responds to the February 
28, 2017, Presidential Executive Order: Restoring the Rule of Law, 
Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ``Waters of the United 
States'' Rule. To meet the objectives of the Executive order, the 
agencies are engaged in a comprehensive two-step rulemaking process. 
Under the first step of this rulemaking process, the proposed rule will 
recodify the regulatory text that was in place prior to the 2015 Clean 
Water Rule and that is currently in place as a

[[Page 57952]]

result of the Agencies' February 2018 final rule to add an 
applicability date of February 6, 2020 to the 2015 Rule.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The rule is proposed under the Clean Water 
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    Alternatives: In this first step, the Agencies have proposed to 
repeal the 2015 definition of ``waters of the United States'' and 
codify the legal status quo that is currently being administered in 
light of the February 2018 final rule to add an applicability date to 
the 2015 Rule. This rule will result in the recodification of the 
regulations that existed prior to the 2015 Rule to provide regulatory 
certainty while the agencies engage in a second rulemaking to 
reconsider the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' As a 
result, the Agencies did not propose any alternatives for this proposed 
rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The agencies estimated the avoided 
costs and forgone benefits of repealing the 2015 Rule. Annual avoided 
costs range from $162.2 to $313.9 million for the low-end scenario and 
$242.4 to $476.2 million for the high-end scenario (at 2016 price 
levels). All of the forgone benefit categories were not fully 
quantified in the economic analysis for the proposed rule. The annual 
forgone benefits range from $33.6 million + unquantified forgone 
benefits to $44.5 million + unquantified forgone benefits for the low-
end scenario and $55.0 million + unquantified forgone benefits to $72.8 
million + unquantified forgone benefits in the high-end scenario. The 
economic analysis can be found in the docket for the proposed 
rulemaking.
    Risks: Because the proposed rule maintains the status quo, there 
are no environmental or health risks associated with this effort.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/27/17  82 FR 34899
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/22/17  82 FR 39712
Supplemental NPRM...................   07/12/18  83 FR 32227
Final Rule..........................   03/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203.
    URL For More Information: https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/proposed-rule-definition-waters-united-states-recodification-pre-existing-rules.
    URL For Public Comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203.
    Agency Contact: Michael McDavit, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-2428, Email: [email protected].
    Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 566-0657, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF74

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 
Commission, or Agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in 
employment by vigorously enforcing and educating the public about the 
following Federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
as amended (prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, 
color, sex (including pregnancy), religion, or national origin); the 
Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (makes it illegal to pay unequal 
wages to men and women performing substantially equal work under 
similar working conditions at the same establishment); the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (prohibits 
employment discrimination based on age of 40 or older); titles I and V 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and sections 501 
and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (prohibit employment 
discrimination based on disability); Title II of the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits employment discrimination 
based on genetic information and limits acquisition and disclosure of 
genetic information); and section 304 of the Government Employee Rights 
Act of 1991 (protects certain previously exempt state and local 
government employees from employment discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability).
    The EEOC has authority to issue legislative regulations under the 
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, title I of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), and title II of the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 
EEOC's authority to issue legislative regulations is limited to 
procedural, record keeping, and reporting matters.
    Two items are identified in this Regulatory Plan. On August 22, 
2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the 
EEOC to reconsider its regulations under the ADA and GINA related to 
incentives and employer-sponsored wellness plans. See AARP v. EEOC, 
Civ. Action No. 16-2113 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2017). In accordance with the 
Court's ruling, the EEOC will consider and take actions to cure defects 
in the rules. The EEOC's Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda states that NPRMs 
are expected to be issued by June 2019.

Executive Order 13771 Statement

    EEOC does not anticipate finalizing any regulatory or deregulatory 
actions subject to Executive Order 13771 in the next 12 months. The two 
rules related to wellness programs under the ADA and GINA are 
significant under E.O. 12866, but are not expected to be finalized in 
the next 12 months.
    Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this 
statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The 
statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the 
Commission.

EEOC

Proposed Rule Stage

144. Amendments to Regulations Under the Americans With Disabilities 
Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1630.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule amends the regulations to implement the equal 
employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to 
address the interaction between title I of the ADA and wellness 
programs. On August 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Columbia ordered the EEOC to reconsider its regulations under the 
ADA related to incentives and employer-sponsored wellness plans. See 
AARP v. EEOC, Civ. Action No. 16-2113 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2017). In 
accordance with the court's ruling, the EEOC will consider and take 
actions to cure defects in the rule. The final rule was published on 
May 17, 2016, (81 FR 31125) and completed in the fall 2016 agenda as 
RIN 3046-AB01.

[[Page 57953]]

    Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1630.14(d) is needed in 
accordance with the District Court's ruling noted above.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires the EEOC to issue 
regulations implementing title I of the Act. The EEOC initially issued 
regulations in 1991 on the law's requirements and prohibited practices 
with respect to employment and issued amended regulations in 2011 to 
conform to changes to the ADA made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. 
The EEOC again issued regulations in May 2016 to address the 
interaction between title I of the ADA and wellness programs. The U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to 
reconsider these regulations in August 2017. These new revisions are 
based on the court's order, as well as the statutory requirement to 
issue regulations to implement title I of the ADA.
    Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
the public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose 
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human 
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer 
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes 
will benefit entities covered by title I of the ADA by clarifying 
employers' obligations under the ADA.
    Risks: The rule imposes no new or additional risks to employers. 
The rule does not address risks to public safety or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202 
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
    Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal 
Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-7031, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Previously reported as 3046-AB01
    RIN: 3046-AB10

EEOC

145. Amendments to Regulations Under the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000ff
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1635.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule amends the regulations on the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) to address wellness 
programs. On August 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Columbia ordered the EEOC to reconsider its regulations under GINA 
related to incentives and employer-sponsored wellness plans. See AARP 
v. EEOC, Civ. Action No. 16-2113 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2017). In accordance 
with the court's ruling, the EEOC will consider and take actions to 
cure defects in the rule. The final rule was published on May 17, 2016, 
(81 FR 31143) and completed in the fall 2016 agenda as RIN 3046-AB02.
    Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1635.8 is needed in 
accordance with the District Court's ruling noted above.
    Summary of Legal Basis: GINA, section 211, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-10, 
requires the EEOC to issue regulations implementing title II of the 
Act. The EEOC issued regulations on November 9, 2010. In May 2016, the 
EEOC issued an amendment to the regulations which dealt with the 
interaction between title II of GINA and wellness programs. The U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to 
reconsider these regulations in August 2017. These new revisions are 
based on the court order, as well as the statutory requirement.
    Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose 
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human 
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer 
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes 
will benefit entities covered by title II of GINA by clarifying 
employers' obligations under GINA.
    Risks: The rule imposes no new or additional risks to employers. 
The rule does not address risks to public safety or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202 
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
    Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4516. Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 3046-AB02
    RIN: 3046-AB11

BILLING CODE 6570-01-P

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)

Regulatory Plan--October 2018

    GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government. GSA's 
acquisition solutions supply Federal purchasers with cost-effective, 
high-quality products, and services from commercial vendors. GSA 
provides workplaces for Federal employees and oversees the preservation 
of historic Federal properties. GSA helps keep the nation safe and 
efficient by providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to 
the U.S. military, and providing state and local governments with law 
enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster 
recovery products and services.
    GSA serves the public by delivering products and services directly 
to its Federal customers through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), 
the Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Government-wide 
Policy (OGP). GSA has a continuing commitment to its Federal customers 
and the U.S. taxpayers by providing those products and services in the 
most cost-effective manner possible.

[[Page 57954]]

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 to increase overall Government effectiveness and efficiency by 
aligning resources around key functions.

Public Buildings Service (PBS)

    PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United 
States. As the landlord for the civilian Federal Government, PBS 
acquires space on behalf of the Federal Government through new 
construction and leasing, and acts as a manager for Federal properties 
across the country. PBS is responsible for over 370 million rentable 
square feet of workspace for Federal employees, owns 1,600 plus assets 
totaling over 180 million rentable square feet, and contracts for more 
than 7,000 plus leased assets totaling over 180 million rentable square 
feet.

Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP)

    OGP sets Government-wide policy in the areas of personal and real 
property, mail, travel, relocation, transportation, information 
technology, regulatory information, and the use of Federal advisory 
committees. OGP also helps direct how all Federal supplies and services 
are acquired as well as GSA's own acquisition programs.
    OGP's policy regulations are described in the following 
subsections:

Office of Asset and Transportation Management--Federal Travel 
Regulation

    The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates travel and 
relocation policy for all U.S. Code, Title 5 Executive agency employees 
at www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr. Federal Register publications and complete 
versions of the FTR are available at www.gsa.gov/ftr. The Federal 
Travel Regulation presents policies in a clear manner to both agencies 
employees to assure that official travel is performed responsibly.

Office of Asset and Transportation Management--Federal Management 
Regulation

    The Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for 
Federal aircraft management, mail management, transportation, personal 
property, real property, and committee 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 GSA. The FMR is in 41 CFR, chapters 101 through 
102, and it implements statutory requirements and executive branch 
policies.

Office of Acquisition Policy--General Services Administration 
Acquisition Manual (GSAM) and 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. 585, et seq. The GSAR implements contract 
clauses, solicitation provisions, and standard forms that control the 
relationship between GSA and contractors and prospective contractors.

Regulatory and Deregulatory Activities

    GSA's Regulatory Reform Task Force, established under Executive 
Order 13777, enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, and is making it 
easier to do business with GSA by eliminating outdated, ineffective, or 
unnecessary regulations and policies. When GSA established its 
Regulatory Reform Task Force it set up four informal working groups, 
led by career employees, and gave them broad authority to review and 
evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their 
repeal, replacement, or modification. Those working groups are 
organized around the agency's primary functions and regulations: The 
Federal Management Regulation, the Federal Travel Regulation, the GSA 
Acquisition Regulation, and policies relating to leasing of buildings.
    During Fiscal Year 2018, GSA completed two (2) deregulatory 
actions.
     GSA issued a final GSAR rule on January 24, 2018 to 
incorporate order level materials (OLMs), also known as other direct 
costs (ODCs). This rule, which was implemented in June 2018, will make 
it easier for customer agencies to buy, and industry partners to 
provide, complete procurement solutions through the Federal Supply 
Schedules while ensuring excellent value for taxpayer dollars.
     GSA issued a final GSAR rule on February 22, 2018 to 
address common commercial supplier agreement (CSA) terms that are 
inconsistent with or create ambiguity with federal law. This rule, 
which was implemented in June 2018, mitigates risk for GSA's federal 
agency customers, reduces proposal and administrative costs for 
industry partners, and helps expedite the contract review process for 
GSA Contracting Officers.

Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Permitting Council Priorities
    Fees for Governance, Oversight and Processing of Environmental 
Reviews and Authorizations; The Permitting Council proposes to 
establish a fee structure to reimburse the Permitting Council and its 
Office of the Executive Director for reasonable costs to implement 
certain requirements and authorities required under FAST-41.
Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Priorities
    GSA is amending the FMR by removing language that is not 
regulatory, revising rules of Federal personal property, management of 
transportation and the management, construction, and disposal of 
Federal real property. The appropriate real property regulations are 
being aligned with the various provisions in the Federal Sales and 
Transfer Act of 2016 and the Federal Property Management Reform Act of 
2016. In addition, e.g. the Transportation Management regulation is 
being streamlined by consolidating policies into fewer subparts and 
modifying provisions to incorporate newer authorities.
Federal Property Management Regulation (FPMR) Priorities
    GSA is amending the FPMR by migrating regulations regarding the 
supply and procurement of Government personal property management and 
Interagency Fleet Management Systems from the FPMR to the FMR.
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Priorities
    GSA is amending the FTR. The Relocation Regulation was impacted by 
the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The amendment addresses both the 
moving

[[Page 57955]]

expenses income tax deduction and qualified moving expense 
reimbursement. Also, in addition, the FTR is being amended to revise 
the payment in kind fee associated with registration fees provided by 
non-Federal sources for speakers and panelists at meetings.
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 
Priorities
    GSA is amending the GSAR to implement streamlined and innovative 
acquisition procedures. GSAR initiatives are focused on:
     Adopting a major construction project delivery method 
involving early industry engagement;
     Establishing contractual arrangements and ordering 
procedures for commercial eCommerce portals;
     Streamlining contract requirements for GSA information 
systems;
     Establishing cyber incident reporting procedures; and
     Revising the requirements for Schedules contract and 
construction contract administration.

Regulations of Concern to Small Businesses

    GSAR Case 2017-G502, Transition to Small Business Administration 
Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program, is of interest to small 
businesses as it will discontinue the GSA agency-level mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] program. The mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program 
will instead be centralized and managed Government-wide by SBA, as 
discussed in the SBA rule at 81 FR 48557.

Regulations Which Promote Open Government and Disclosure

    GSPMR Case 2016-105-01, Public Availability of Agency Records and 
Informational Materials; Proposed Rule. The GSA is issuing a proposed 
rule to amend its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA). The regulations are being revised to update and streamline 
language of several procedural provisions and to incorporate certain 
changes brought about by the amendments to the FOIA under both 
statutory and nonstatutory authorities. This rule also amends the GSA's 
regulations under the FOIA to incorporate certain changes made to the 
FOIA by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.

    Dated: July 27, 2018.

Jessica Salmoiraghi,

Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.

BILLING CODE 6820-14

GSA

Proposed Rule Stage

146. General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); 
GSAR Case 2015-G506, Adoption of Construction Project Delivery Method 
Involving Early Industry Engagement

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Deregulatory.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 536; 48 CFR 552.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to 
amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 
to adopt an additional project delivery method for construction, 
construction manager as constructor (CMc). The current FAR and GSAR 
lacks detailed coverage differentiating various construction project 
delivery methods. GSA's policies on CMc have been previously issued 
through other means. By incorporating CMc into the GSAR and 
differentiating for various construction methods, the GSAR will provide 
centralized guidance to ensure consistent application of construction 
project principles across the organization. Integrating these 
requirements into the GSAR will also allow industry to provide public 
comments through the rulemaking process.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Tony Hubbard, Procurement Analyst, General Services 
Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone: 202 357-
5810, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3090-AJ64

GSA

147. General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
G511, Contract Requirements for GSA Information Systems

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 501; 48 CFR 502; 48 CFR 511; 48 CFR 539; 48 
CFR 552.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to 
amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 
to streamline and update requirements for contracts that involve GSA 
information systems. GSA's unique policies on cybersecurity and other 
information technology requirements have been previously communicated 
through other means. By incorporating these requirements into the GSAR, 
the GSAR will provide centralized guidance to ensure consistent 
application across the organization. Integrating these requirements 
into the GSAR will also allow industry to provide public comments 
through the rulemaking process.
    GSA's cybersecurity requirements mandate contractors protect the 
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of unclassified GSA 
information and information systems from cybersecurity vulnerabilities, 
and threats in accordance with the Federal Information Security 
Modernization Act of 2014 and associated Federal cybersecurity 
requirements. This rule will require contracting officers to 
incorporate applicable GSA cybersecurity requirements within the 
statement of work to ensure compliance with Federal cybersecurity 
requirements and implement best practices for preventing cyber 
incidents. These GSA requirements mandate applicable controls and 
standards (e.g., U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
U.S. National Archive and Records Administration Controlled 
Unclassified Information standards).
    Contract requirements for internal information systems, external 
contractor systems, cloud systems, and mobile systems will be covered 
by this rule. This rule will also update existing GSAR provision 
552.239-70, Information Technology Security Plan and Security 
Authorization and GSAR clause 552.239-71, Security Requirements for 
Unclassified Information Technology Resources to only require the 
provision and clause when the contract will involve information or 
information systems connected to a GSA network.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/19
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57956]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Michelle Bohm, Contract Specialist, General 
Services Administration, 100 S Independence Mall W Room: 9th Floor, 
Philadelphia, PA 19106-2320, Phone: 215 446-4705, Email: 
michelle.[email protected].
    RIN: 3090-AJ84

GSA

148. General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); 
GSAR Case 2016-G515, Cyber Incident Reporting

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 501; 48 CFR 502; 48 CFR 504; 48 CFR 539; 48 
CFR 552.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to 
amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 
to provide requirements for GSA contractors to report cyber incidents 
that could potentially affect GSA or its customer agencies. The rule 
integrates the existing cyber incident reporting policy within GSA 
Order CIO 9297.2C, GSA Information Breach Notification Policy that did 
not previously go through the rulemaking process into the GSAR. By 
incorporating cyber incident reporting requirements into the GSAR, the 
GSAR will provide centralized guidance to ensure consistent application 
of cybersecurity principles across the organization. Integrating these 
requirements into the GSAR will also allow industry to provide public 
comments through the rulemaking process.
    The rule outlines the roles and responsibilities of the GSA 
contracting officer, contractors, and agencies ordering off of GSA's 
contracts in the reporting of a cyber incident.
    The rule establishes a contractor's responsibility to report any 
cyber incident where the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of 
GSA information or information systems are potentially compromised or 
where the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information or 
information systems owned or managed by or on behalf of the U.S. 
Government is potentially compromised. It establishes an explicit 
timeframe for reporting cyber incidents, details the required elements 
of a cyber incident report, and provides the required Government's 
points of contact for submitting the cyber incident report.
    The rule also outlines additional contractor requirements that may 
apply for any cyber incidents involving personally identifiable 
information. In addition, the rule clarifies both GSA's and ordering 
agencies' authority to access contractor systems in the event of a 
cyber incident. It also establishes the role of GSA in the cyber 
incident reporting process and explains how the primary response agency 
for a cyber incident is determined. Further, it establishes the 
requirement for contractors to preserve images of affected systems and 
ensure contractor employees receive appropriate training for reporting 
cyber incidents. The rule also outlines how contractor attributional/
proprietary information provided as part of the cyber incident 
reporting process will be protected and used.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/19
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Funk, Program Analyst, General Services 
Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone: 202 357-
5805, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3090-AJ85

GSA

149. Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC); FPISC 
Case 2018-001; Fees for Governance, Oversight, and Processing of 
Environmental Reviews and Authorizations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4370m-8
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 1900.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: GSA proposes to establish a fee structure to reimburse 
the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council and its Office of 
the Executive Director for reasonable costs incurred in coordinating 
environmental reviews and authorizations in implementing title 41 of 
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. GSA will issue this 
regulation on behalf of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 
Council.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/04/18  83 FR 44846
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/05/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Amber Dawn Levofsky, Program Analyst, General 
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Room 3017, Washington, DC 
20405-0001, Phone: 202 969-7298, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3090-AJ88

GSA

Final Rule Stage

150. GSAR Case 2008-G517, Cooperative Purchasing--Acquisition of 
Security and Law Enforcement Related Goods and Services (Schedule 84) 
by State and Local Governments Through Federal Supply Schedules

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 40 U.S.C. 502(c)(1)(B)
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 511; 48 CFR 516; 48 CFR 532; 48 CFR 538; 48 
CFR 546; 48 CFR 552.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the 
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to 
implement Public Law 110-248, The Local Preparedness Acquisition Act. 
The Act authorizes the Administrator of General Services to provide for 
the use by State or local governments of Federal Supply Schedules of 
the General Services Administration (GSA) for alarm and signal systems, 
facility management systems, firefighting and rescue equipment, law 
enforcement and security equipment, marine craft and related equipment, 
special purpose clothing, and related services (as contained in Federal 
supply

[[Page 57957]]

classification code group 84 or any amended or subsequent version of 
that Federal supply classification group).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   09/19/08  73 FR 54334
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      11/18/08
 End.
Final Rule..........................   02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Christina Mullins, Procurement Analyst, General 
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone: 
202 969-4066, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3090-AI68

GSA

151. General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); 
GSAR Case 2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedule Contract Administration

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 501; 48 CFR 515; 48 CFR 538; 48 CFR 552.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the 
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to 
clarify and update the contracting by negotiation GSAR section and 
incorporate existing Federal Supply Schedule Contracting policies and 
procedures, and corresponding provisions and clauses.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/10/14  79 FR 54126
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/10/14
Final Rule..........................   02/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dana L. Munson, Procurement Analyst, General 
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Phone: 
202 357-9652, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3090-AJ41

GSA

152.  General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation 
(GSAR); GSAR Case 2019-G501, Ordering Procedures for Commercial E-
Commerce Portals

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 572.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the 
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to 
establish competition procedures when using commercial e-commerce 
portals established pursuant to section 846 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Current competition procedures 
do not align with, nor reflect, technological innovation when 
purchasing from commercial e-commerce portals. This rule aims to 
modernize the buying experience in partnership with commercial e-
commerce portal providers, enabling GSA to combine competition with 
speed, and will allow the procedures to evolve as technology advances.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   03/00/19  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment..........   05/00/19  .......................
Period End..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Matthew McFarland, Legislative and Regulatory 
Advisor, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, 
DC 20405, Phone: 301 758-5880, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3090-AK03

BILLING CODE 6820-34-P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) aim is 
to increase human understanding of the solar system and the universe 
that contains it and to improve American aeronautics ability. NASA's 
basic organization consists of the Headquarters, nine field Centers, 
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (a federally funded research and 
development center), and several component installations which report 
to Center Directors. Responsibility for overall planning, coordination, 
and control of NASA programs is vested in NASA Headquarters, located in 
Washington, DC.
    NASA continues to implement programs according to its 2018 
Strategic Plan. The Agency's mission is to ``Lead an innovative and 
sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international 
partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and bring 
new knowledge and opportunities back to Earth. Support growth of the 
Nation's economy in space and aeronautics, increase understanding of 
the universe and our place in it, work with industry to improve 
America's aerospace technologies, and advance American leadership.'' 
The FY 2018 Strategic Plan (available at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_2018_strategic_plan.pdf) guides NASA's 
program activities through a framework of the following four strategic 
goals:
     Strategic Goal 1: Expand human knowledge through new 
scientific discoveries.
     Strategic Goal 2: Extend human presence deeper into space 
and to the Moon for sustainable long-term exploration and utilization.
     Strategic Goal 3: Address national challenges and catalyze 
economic growth.
     Strategic Goal 4: Optimize capabilities and operations.
    In the decades since Congress enacted the National Aeronautics and 
Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific and engineering 
capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating tremendous results and 
benefits for humankind. NASA will continue to push scientific and 
technical boundaries in pursuit of these goals.

NASA's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles

    The Agency's rulemaking program strives to be responsive, 
efficient, and transparent. As noted in Executive

[[Page 57958]]

Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (May 1, 
2012), international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic 
law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means 
of promoting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as 
well as economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.
    NASA, along with the Departments of State and Commerce and Defense, 
engage with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear 
Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology Control Regime 
through which the international community develops a common list of 
items that should be subject to export controls. NASA has also been a 
key participant in the Administration's Export Control Reform effort 
that resulted in a complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List and 
fundamental changes to the Commerce Control List. New controls have 
facilitated transfers of goods and technologies to allies and partners 
while helping prevent transfers to countries of national security and 
proliferation concerns.
    Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' 
(February 24, 2017), required NASA to appoint a Regulatory Reform 
Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives 
and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) 
to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to 
the Agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, 
consistent with applicable law. NASA is doing this work primarily 
through its work as a signatory to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory 
Council.
    The FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1 contains procurement regulations that 
apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1302 
and FAR 1.103(b), the FAR is jointly prepared, issued, and maintained 
by the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and 
the Administrator of NASA, under their several statutory authorities.
    These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' 
(January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and Executive 
Order 12866.
    In addition, NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements 
through the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. As a result 
of the ongoing review, evaluation, and recommendations of the FAR Task 
Force and internal Agency discussions, NASA has identified priority 
regulatory and deregulatory actions that reduce costs to the public by 
eliminating unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative regulations.
    The Agency has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious 
acquisition, health, and personnel and readiness risks as discussed 
below.
    NASA will revise the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to implement section 
823 of NASA Transition Authorization of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-10) to 
improve the detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts in 
the supply chain. This revision will add a contract clause to the NFS 
to require each covered contractor, including a subcontractor, to 
detect and avoid the inclusion of any counterfeit parts in electronic 
parts or products that contain electronic parts, take corrective 
actions necessary to remedy, and notify the applicable NASA contracting 
officer not later than 30 calendar days after the date the covered 
contractor becomes aware, or has reason to suspect, that any end item, 
component, part, or material contained in supplies purchased by NASA, 
or purchased by a covered contractor or subcontractor for delivery to, 
or on behalf of, NASA contains a counterfeit electronic part or suspect 
counterfeit electronic part.

NASA

Proposed Rule Stage

153. Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Parts

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 823 of the NASA Transition Authorization Act 
of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-10; 51 U.S.C. 20113)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: NASA is proposing to amend the NFS Supplement to 
implement section 823 of NASA Transition Authorization of 2017 (Pub. L. 
115-10) to improve the detection and avoidance of counterfeit 
electronic parts in the supply chain. This proposed rule will add a 
contract clause to the NFS to require each covered contractor, 
including a subcontractor, to detect and avoid the inclusion of any 
counterfeit parts in electronic parts or products that contain 
electronic parts and to take corrective actions necessary to remedy or 
inclusion.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule.......................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Geoffrey Sage, Office of Procurement, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 
20546, Phone: 202 358-2420, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2700-AE38

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. These 
regulations include records management, information services, and 
information security. For example, records management regulations 
directed to Federal agencies concern the proper management and 
disposition of Federal records. Through the Information Security 
Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also issues Governmentwide regulations 
concerning information security classification, controlled unclassified 
information (CUI), and declassification programs; through the Office of 
Government Information Services, NARA issues Governmentwide regulations 
concerning Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute resolution 
services and FOIA ombudsman functions; and through the Office of the 
Federal Register, NARA issues regulations concerning publishing Federal 
documents in the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, and 
other publications.
    NARA regulations directed to the public primarily address access to 
and use of our historically valuable holdings, including archives, 
donated historical materials, and Presidential records. NARA also 
issues regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
    NARA has two regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018, which are 
included in The Regulatory Plan. The first priority is to update our 
electronic records management regulation to account for changes to 44 
U.S.C. 3302 which require NARA to issue standards for digital 
reproductions of records with

[[Page 57959]]

an eye toward allowing agencies to then dispose of the original source 
records. Agencies have begun major digitization projects and will be 
doing more in the future. Under the statutory provisions in 44. U.S.C. 
3302, agencies may not dispose of original source records due to having 
digitized them (prior to the disposal authority date established in a 
records schedule) unless they have digitized the records according to 
standards established by NARA. NARA is initiating two rulemaking 
actions to establish the necessary digitization standards: One rule for 
temporary records (records of short-term, temporary value that are not 
appropriate for preservation in the National Archives of the United 
States), and another rule for permanent records (permanently valuable 
and appropriate for preservation in the National Archives of the United 
States).
    The second priority this fiscal year is a new regulation for the 
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The Open Government 
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524) amended the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended), and created OGIS 
within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). OGIS is 
finalizing regulations, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2104, to clarify, 
elaborate upon, and specify the procedures in place for Federal 
agencies and public requesters who seek OGIS's dispute resolution 
services within the FOIA system. The regulation will describe one of 
the areas in which OGIS carries out its role as the Federal FOIA 
Ombudsman by working with Federal agencies to provide an alternative to 
litigation in resolving FOIA disputes.

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Fall 2018 Unified Agenda

    OPM works in several broad categories to recruit, retain and honor 
a world-class workforce for the American people.
     We manage Federal job announcement postings at 
USAJOBS.gov, and set policy on governmentwide hiring procedures.
     We conduct background investigations for prospective 
employees and security clearances across government, with hundreds of 
thousands of cases each year.
     We uphold and defend the merit systems in Federal civil 
service, making sure that the Federal workforce uses fair practices in 
all aspects of personnel management.
     We manage pension benefits for retired Federal employees 
and their families. We also administer health and other insurance 
programs for Federal employees and retirees.
     We provide training and development programs and other 
management tools for Federal employees and agencies.
     In many cases, we take the lead in developing, testing and 
implementing new Governmentwide policies that relate to personnel 
issues.
    Altogether, we work to make the Federal Government America's model 
employer for the 21st century.

OPM's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles

    Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' 
(February 24, 2017), required OPM to appoint a Regulatory Reform 
Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives 
and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) 
to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to 
the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, 
consistent with applicable law.
    These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' 
(January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and Executive 
Order 12866.
    In relation to Executive Order 13771, many of OPM's agenda items 
are either exempt under section 4(b) of the order, or deregulatory. OPM 
published the following deregulatory item in fiscal year 2018.
     Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Flexibilities--
This final rule added additional flexibility to the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits (FEHB) Program so that all carriers will be able to 
offer three plan options, one of which may be a High Deductible plan 
option. Employee Organization and Comprehensive Medical plans already 
have this flexibility. In the past not all carriers could offer more 
than two options. This change will level the playing field in terms of 
options offered to Federal employees, annuitants, and their eligible 
family members. This action was necessary to promote a competitive 
environment where carriers have an incentive to offer higher quality 
benefits at affordable prices and broader provider networks. This 
regulation fully aligns with the Administration's goal of promoting 
affordable health plan choices.
    The agenda includes one rule that promotes open government and uses 
disclosure as a regulatory tool.
     Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Regulations--This 
proposed rule seeks to remove obsolete sections of OPM's FOIA 
regulations and incorporate all FOIA amendments, inclusive of the FOIA 
Improvement Act of 2016.
    OPM also has a number of regulatory items that focus on 
Administration priorities and Executive Orders. These include:
     Administrative Law Judges--The U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) is issuing interim regulations governing the 
appointment and employment of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). This 
rule will implement changes to the appointment and employment of ALJs 
as required by Executive Order 13843.
     Direct-Hire Authority for Agency Chief Information 
Officers--This proposed rule revises OPM direct-hire authority (DHA) 
regulations for the implementation of Executive Order (E.O.) 13833 
titled, ``Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information 
Officers,'' which requires OPM to issue proposed regulations necessary 
to grant DHA for information technology (IT) positions under certain 
conditions.
    A fully searchable e-Agenda is available for viewing in its 
entirety at www.reginfo.gov. Agenda information is also available at 
www.regulations.gov, the government-wide website for submission of 
comments on proposed regulations. Our fall 2018 agenda follows.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexys Stanley, (202) 606-1183 or 
[email protected].

OPM

Proposed Rule Stage

154. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Regulations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552
    CFR Citation: 5 CFR 294.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to 
amend its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations. The Freedom of 
Information Act was enacted in 1966. This revision is required to 
incorporate all of the

[[Page 57960]]

subsequent FOIA amendments, inclusive of the FOIA Improvement Act of 
2016.
    Statement of Need: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
proposes to amend the OPM FOIA regulations. The Freedom of Information 
Act was enacted in 1966. This revision is required to incorporate all 
of the subsequent FOIA amendments, inclusive of the FOIA Improvement 
Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552, OPM and 
every federal agency shall make available to the public, information as 
follows:
    (1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the 
Federal Register for the guidance of the public:
    (A) Descriptions of its central and field organization and the 
established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a 
uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the 
public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain 
decisions;
    (B) statements of the general course and method by which its 
functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and 
requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
    (C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the 
places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope 
and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;
    (D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as 
authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations 
of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and
    (E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/24/08  73 FR 43153
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/22/08  .......................
Second NPRM.........................   03/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Tiffany Ford, FOIA Officer, Office of Personnel 
Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Phone: 202 606-
9175, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3206-AK53

OPM

155.  Direct-Hire Authority for Agency Chief Information 
Officers

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3)
    CFR Citation: 5 CFR part 337.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing 
a proposed regulation to revise its direct-hire authority (DHA) 
regulations for the implementation of Executive Order (E.O.) 13833 
titled, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information 
Officers, which requires OPM to issue proposed regulations necessary to 
grant DHA for information technology (IT) positions under certain 
conditions. This will enhance the Government's ability to recruit 
needed IT professionals and it allows Agencies to make the initial 
determination whether they have a severe-shortage of candidates or 
critical hiring need.
    Statement of Need: The U.S. Office of Personnel is revising the 
Direct-Hire Authority (DHA) regulation in Part 337 to implement the 
provisions of Executive Order 13833. The proposed regulation will allow 
certain agencies to determine whether a severe shortage of candidates 
(or, with respect to the Department of Veterans Affairs, that there 
exists a severe shortage of highly qualified candidates) or a critical 
hiring need exists for IT positions for purposes of establishing DHA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: On May 15, 2018, the President signed E.O. 
13833, titled, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information 
Officers (83 FR 23345). The E.O. is aimed at modernizing the Federal 
Government's information technology infrastructure and improving the 
delivery of digital services and the management, acquisition, and 
oversight of Federal IT. Section 9 of the E.O. directs OPM to propose 
regulations pursuant to which OPM may delegate to the heads of certain 
agencies (other than the Secretary of Defense) authority to determine, 
under regulations prescribed by OPM, whether a severe shortage of 
candidates (or, for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) a 
severe shortage of highly qualified candidates) or a critical hiring 
need exists for positions in the Information Technology Management (IT) 
Series, general schedule (GS)-2210 or equivalent, for purposes of an 
entitlement to a direct hire authority (DHA). The agencies covered by 
the E.O. are those listed in 31 U.S.C. 901(b), or independent 
regulatory agencies defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Darlene Phelps, Employee Services, Office of 
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Phone: 
202 606-0203, Fax: 202 606-4430, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3206-AN65

OPM

Final Rule Stage

156.  Administrative Law Judges

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301; 5 U.S.C. 3302; E.O. 13843
    CFR Citation: 5 CFR 212; 5 CFR 213; 5 CFR 300; 5 CFR 302; 5 CFR 
930.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing 
interim regulations governing the appointment and employment of 
Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). This rule will implement changes to 
the appointment and employment of ALJs as required by Executive Order 
13843.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of the interim rule is to implement 
changes to the appointment and employment ALJs, which places new 
appointments to ALJ positions in the excepted service and keeps 
incumbent ALJs hired on or before July 10, 2018 in the competitive 
service. The interim rule will revise OPM regulations on the 
appointment and employment of ALJs accordingly.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Executive Order 13843, signed on July 10, 
2018, directs ALJ positions appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105 be in the 
excepted service under Schedule E. Individuals appointed to ALJ 
positions prior to July 10, 2018, remain in the competitive service as 
long as they remain in their current positions.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

[[Page 57961]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Katika Floyd, Employee Services, Office of 
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Phone: 
202 606-9531, Fax: 202 606-2329, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3206-AN72

BILLING CODE 6325-44-P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal 
corporation created under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act (ERISA) to guarantee the payment of pension benefits 
earned by nearly 40 million workers and retirees in private-sector 
defined benefit plans. PBGC is currently responsible for the benefits 
of about 1.5 million people in failed plans. PBGC receives no tax 
revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment 
income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from 
the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans. PBGC 
administers two insurance programs--one for single-employer defined 
benefit pension plans and a second for multiemployer defined benefit 
pension plans.
     Single-Employer Program. Under the single-employer 
program, when a plan terminates with insufficient assets to cover all 
plan benefits (distress and involuntary terminations), PBGC pays plan 
benefits that are guaranteed under title IV. PBGC also pays 
nonguaranteed plan benefits to the extent funded by plan assets or 
recoveries from employers.
     Multiemployer Program. The multiemployer program covers 
collectively bargained plans involving more than one unrelated 
employer. PBGC provides financial assistance (in the form of a loan) to 
the plan if the plan is insolvent and thus unable to pay benefits at 
the guaranteed level. The guarantee is structured differently from, and 
is generally significantly lower than, the single-employer guarantee.
    At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017, PBGC had a deficit of $10.9 
billion in its single-employer insurance program and $65 billion in its 
multiemployer insurance program. PBGC's projections show that the 
financial position of the single-employer program is likely to continue 
to improve, but the multiemployer program is in dire financial 
condition and likely to run out of funds by the end of fiscal year 
2025. If that happens, PBGC will not have the money to pay benefits at 
the current guarantee levels to participants in insolvent plans.
    To carry out its statutory functions, PBGC issues regulations on 
such matters as how to pay premiums, when reports are due, what 
benefits are covered by the insurance program, how to terminate a plan, 
the liability for underfunding, and how withdrawal liability works for 
multiemployer plans. PBGC follows a regulatory approach that seeks to 
encourage the continuation and maintenance of defined benefit plans. 
So, in developing new regulations and reviewing existing regulations, 
PBGC seeks to reduce burdens on plans, employers, and participants, and 
to ease and simplify employer compliance wherever possible. PBGC 
particularly strives to meet the needs of small businesses that sponsor 
defined benefit plans. In all such efforts, PBGC's mission is to 
protect the retirement incomes of plan participants.

Regulatory/Deregulatory Objectives and Priorities

    PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory objectives and priorities are 
developed in the context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
     To encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary 
private pension plans;
     To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of 
pension benefits; and
     To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
    Pension plans and the statutory framework in which they are 
maintained and terminated are complex. Despite this complexity, PBGC is 
committed to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely 
regulations to help affected parties. PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory 
objectives and priorities for the fiscal year are:
     To enhance the retirement security of workers and 
retirees;
     To implement statutory changes through regulatory actions 
that ease compliance burdens and achieve maximum net benefits; and
     To simplify existing regulations and reduce burden.
    PBGC endeavors in all its regulatory and deregulatory actions to 
promote clarity and reduce burden with the goal that net cost impact on 
the public is zero or less overall.

Rethinking Existing Regulations

    Most of PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory actions are the result of 
its ongoing retrospective review program to identify and ameliorate 
inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and requirements made irrelevant over 
time. PBGC undertook a review of its multiemployer plan regulations and 
has identified rules in which it can reduce burden and clarify 
guidance. For example, PBGC has proposed reductions in actuarial 
valuation requirements for certain small terminated multiemployer 
pension plans, notice requirements on plan sponsors of plans terminated 
by mass withdrawal, and reporting and disclosure requirements on 
sponsors of insolvent plans (``Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer 
Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors'' RIN 1212-AB38). Another proposal 
would simplify how multiemployer plans calculate withdrawal liability 
where changes in contributions or benefits are, by statute, to be 
disregarded in that calculation (``Methods for Computing Withdrawal 
Liability'' RIN 1212-AB36).
    PBGC plans to propose a ``housekeeping'' rulemaking project to make 
miscellaneous technical corrections, clarifications, and improvements 
to PBGC's regulations, such as the reportable events regulation 
(particularly addressing duplicative active participant reduction event 
reporting) and the regulation on annual financial and actuarial 
information reporting (``Miscellaneous Corrections, Clarifications, and 
Improvements'' RIN 1212-AB34). PBGC expects to undertake periodic 
rulemaking projects like this that deal with minor technical and 
clarifying issues. The ``Benefit Payments'' proposal (RIN 1212-AB27) 
would make clarifications and codify policies in PBGC's benefit 
payments and valuation regulations involving payment of lump sums, 
entitlement to a benefit, changes to benefit form, partial benefit 
distributions, and valuation of plan assets. PBGC's regulatory review 
also identified a need to update the rules for administrative review of 
agency decisions (RIN 1212-AB35).
    A couple of proposed rulemakings would update PBGC's regulations 
and policies to ensure that the actuarial and economic content remains 
current. The modifications PBGC is considering at this time are to 
interest and mortality assumptions under the asset allocation 
regulation (RIN 1212-AA55), and the methodology for setting interest

[[Page 57962]]

assumptions under the benefit payments regulation (RIN 1212-AB41).

Small Businesses

    PBGC takes into account the special needs and concerns of small 
businesses in making policy. For example, the ``Terminated and 
Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors'' proposal 
discussed above would reduce valuation and reporting burdens primarily 
on small multiemployer plans, which generally are comprised of small 
employers.

Open Government and Increased Public Participation

    PBGC encourages public participation in the regulatory process. For 
example, PBGC created a new page on its website that highlights when 
there are opportunities to comment on proposed rules, information 
collections, and other Federal Register notices. PBGC's current efforts 
to reduce regulatory burden in the projects discussed above are in 
substantial part a response to public comments. Last year PBGC asked 
for feedback on its regulatory planning and review of existing 
regulations by way of a Request for Information (RFI). A number of 
individuals and organizations responded, and PBGC considered the 
comments, some of which are reflected in this Fall agenda. PBGC 
encourages comments on an on-going basis as we continue to look for 
ways to further improve PBGC's regulations.

BILLING CODE 7709-02-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 the 
physical and economic recovery of communities after disasters. In 
carrying out this mission, SBA strives to improve the economic 
environment for small businesses, including those in rural areas, in 
areas that have significantly higher unemployment and lower income 
levels than the Nation's averages, and those in traditionally 
underserved markets. SBA has several financial, procurement, and 
technical assistance programs that provide a crucial foundation for 
those starting or growing a small business. For example, the Agency 
serves as a guarantor of loans made to small businesses by lenders that 
participate in SBA's programs and also licenses small business 
investment companies that make equity and debt investments in 
qualifying small businesses using a combination of privately raised 
capital and SBA guaranteed leverage. SBA also funds various training 
and mentoring programs to help small businesses, particularly 
businesses owned by women, veterans, minorities, and other historically 
underrepresented groups, gain access to Federal government contracting 
opportunities. The Agency also provides management and technical 
assistance to existing or potential small business owners through 
various grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts. Finally, as a 
vital part of its purpose, SBA also provides direct financial 
assistance to homeowners, renters, and businesses to repair or replace 
their property in the aftermath of a disaster.

Reducing Burden on Small Businesses

    SBA's regulatory policy reflects a commitment to developing 
regulations that reduce or eliminate the burden on the public, in 
particular the Agency's core constituents--small businesses. SBA's 
regulatory process generally includes an assessment of the costs and 
benefits of the regulations as required by Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review;'' Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review;'' and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
SBA's program offices are particularly invested in finding ways to 
reduce the burden imposed by the Agency's core activities in its loan, 
grant, innovation, and procurement programs.
    On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' 82 FR 9339, which 
established principles for prioritizing an agency's regulatory and 
deregulatory actions. E.O. 13771 was followed by E.O. 13777, 
``Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,'' 82 FR 12285 (February 24, 2017), 
which identified processes for agencies to follow in overseeing their 
regulatory programs. This Agenda was prepared in accordance with both 
E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, and SBA will continue to work with the 
Office of Management and Budget to fully integrate the Executive Orders 
and to implement OMB guidance into SBA's rulemaking processes. As part 
of that effort, SBA issued a Request for Information in the Federal 
Register requesting public input on which SBA regulations should be 
repealed, replaced, or modified because they are obsolete, unnecessary, 
ineffective, or burdensome. 82 FR 38617 (August 15, 2017). The Agency 
continues to evaluate the comments received and will amend its 
regulations as appropriate. In addition, SBA's Office of Advocacy is 
hosting a series of small business roundtables in order to hear 
firsthand from small businesses facing regulatory burdens on steps SBA 
and other agencies can take to reduce or eliminate those burdens. For 
more information on these roundtables, please visit https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/regulatory-reform.

Openness and Transparency

    SBA promotes transparency, collaboration, and public participation 
in its rulemaking process. To that end, SBA routinely solicits comments 
on its regulations, even those that are not subject to the public 
notice and comment requirement under the Administrative Procedures Act. 
Where appropriate, SBA also conducts hearings, webinars, and other 
public events as part of its regulatory process.

Regulatory Framework

    The SBA Strategic Plan serves as the foundation for the regulations 
that the Agency will develop during the next twelve months. This 
Strategic Plan provides a framework for strengthening, streamlining, 
and simplifying SBA's programs while leveraging collaborative 
relationships with other agencies and the private sector to maximize 
the tools small business owners and entrepreneurs need to drive 
American innovation and strengthen the economy. The plan sets out four 
strategic goals: (1) Support small business revenue and job growth; (2) 
build healthy entrepreneurial ecosystems and create business friendly 
environments; (3) restore small businesses and communities after 
disasters; and (4) strengthen SBA's ability to serve small businesses. 
In order to achieve these goals SBA will, among other objectives, focus 
on:
     Expanding access to capital through SBA's extensive 
lending network;
     Helping small business exporters succeed in global 
markets;
     Ensuring federal contracting and innovation goals are met 
or exceeded;
     Empowering veterans and military families who want to 
start or grow their business;
     Delivering entrepreneurial counseling and training 
services in collaboration with resource partners; and
     Enhancing program oversight and risk management, and 
improving recovery of taxpayer assets.
    The regulations reported in SBA's semi-annual regulatory agenda and 
plan

[[Page 57963]]

are intended to facilitate achievement of these strategic goals and 
objectives and further the objectives of E.O. 13771. Over the next 
twelve months, SBA's highest priorities will be to implement the 
following three regulations.
(1) E.O. 13771 Designation--Deregulatory Action: Small Business HUBZone 
Program; Government Contracting Programs (RIN: 3245-AG38)
    As part of its efforts to fulfill the objectives of E.O. 13771, SBA 
has completed a comprehensive review of the regulations for the 
Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program. As a result 
of that review, this rule proposes amendments that would eliminate 
ambiguities in the regulations and reduce the regulatory burdens 
imposed on HUBZone small business concerns and government agencies. The 
amendments would make it easier for small business concerns to 
understand and comply with the program's requirements and make the 
HUBZone program a more attractive option for procuring federal 
agencies.
    For example, the rule proposes to eliminate the burden on HUBZone 
small businesses to continually demonstrate that they meet all 
eligibility requirements at the time of each HUBZone contract offer and 
award. The rule would instead require only annual recertification. This 
reduced burden on certified HUBZone small businesses would allow a firm 
to remain eligible for future HUBZone contracts for an entire year, 
without requiring it to demonstrate that it continues to meet all 
HUBZone requirements. The rule also proposes to eliminate the 
requirement for the concern to relocate in order to attempt to maintain 
its HUBZone status when the area where the business is located or a 
qualifying employee resides loses its HUBZone status.
    In addition to carrying out the Administration's regulatory policy, 
removal of these and similar regulatory requirements would make it 
easier for firms to meet the eligibility requirements for HUBZone 
contracts, and help SBA to achieve its strategic objective to simplify 
access to federal contracting for small businesses.
(2) E.O. 13771 Designation--Regulatory Action: Implementation of the 
Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018 (RIN: 3245-
AH05)
    In order to protect the safety and soundness of its business loan 
programs, SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) is responsible 
for monitoring performance of the various types of lenders that 
participate in these loan programs, managing the programs' credit 
risks, and enforcing applicable program regulations and procedures. The 
recently enacted Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 
2018 increases SBA's authority to supervise lenders and enforce prudent 
lending standards. This rule will propose the regulatory amendments 
necessary to implement the new authorities. The amendments will clarify 
or add conditions for informal and formal enforcement actions, 
including supervisory letters, voluntary letters, suspensions or 
revocations of lending authority. The rule will also propose to 
implement the statutory provision that authorizes lenders to appeal 
enforcement actions to SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals.
    SBA recognizes the importance of maintaining a comprehensive lender 
oversight and risk management system. As evidence of its commitment to 
a robust credit risk management system, SBA has identified lender 
oversight and risk management as one of the Agency's strategic 
objectives in its FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan. After SBA has 
implemented the statutorily required amendments, the revised 
regulations will enhance SBA's oversight capabilities, reduce risk, and 
ensure the integrity of the small business loan programs.
(3) E.O. 13771 Designation--Other Action: Women-Owned Small Business 
and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business--
Certification (RIN: 3245-AG75)
    SBA is proposing to amend its regulations to implement amendments 
to the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) and Economically Disadvantaged 
Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) Federal Contract Program that were 
authorized by section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
2015. Based on this authority, SBA is proposing to create a 
certification program for its WOSB and EDWOSB contracting program that, 
once implemented, will streamline the review process and provide an 
option for small businesses that reduces their certification costs. The 
proposed changes would further SBA's strategic objectives to simplify 
the process and increase contracting opportunities for small 
businesses. The proposed reduction in certification costs would also 
further the regulatory reform objectives of E.O. 13771.
    The current WOSB and EDWOSB contracting program permits firms to 
self-certify for the program or to be certified by a third party 
certifier (TPC). The program also currently requires firms to submit 
documentation to an SBA-maintained electronic document repository. SBA 
regulations currently require contracting officers to check the 
repository for documents submitted by every WOSB or EDWOSB contract 
awardee. The rule will propose the establishment of an SBA 
certification process, removal of both the self-certification option 
and the requirement for contracting officers to review the repository 
documents. Shifting responsibilities to SBA and streamlining the review 
process will enable contracting officers to focus more on awarding 
awards, which should lead to an increased number of set-aside or sole 
source contracts for WOSBs and EDWOSBs. This outcome would help SBA to 
achieve its strategic objectives to ensure Federal agencies meet or 
exceed their small business contracting goals.
    While it is important to implement rules that do not unnecessarily 
burden small businesses, SBA also has a responsibility to ensure that 
its programs are serving only those businesses that meet program 
eligibility requirements. To that end, this rule will also propose 
standards for increased oversight in order to ensure continuing 
eligibly of certified program participants.

SBA

Proposed Rule Stage

157. Small Business Hubzone Program and Government Contracting Programs

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 657a
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 115; 13 CFR 121; 13 CFR 125; 13 CFR 126.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: SBA has been reviewing its processes and procedures for 
implementing the HUBZone program and has determined that several of the 
regulations governing the program should be amended in order to resolve 
certain issues that have arisen. As a result, the proposed rule would 
constitute a comprehensive revision of part 126 of SBA's regulations to 
clarify current HUBZone Program regulations, and implement various new 
procedures. The amendments will make it easier for participants to 
comply with the program requirements and enable them to maximize the 
benefits afforded by participation. In developing this proposed rule, 
SBA will focus on the principles of Executive Orders 12866, 13771, and 
13563 to determine whether portions of regulations should be modified, 
streamlined, expanded or repealed to make the HUBZone program

[[Page 57964]]

more effective and/or less burdensome on small business concerns. At 
the same time, SBA will maintain a framework that helps identify and 
reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of the proposed rule is to increase 
economic investment and employment in Historically Underutilized 
Business Zones (HUBZones).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The rule makes a number of changes 
necessary to clarify the HUBZone program's regulations and to make the 
program easier to use for small business contractors and procuring 
agencies.
    Alternatives: The alternative to the proposed regulations would be 
the status quo, where businesses cannot request reconsideration when 
their application is denied, must be eligible at the time of offer and 
time of award, and must recertify every 3 years. SBA has modeled the 
revised processes based on its other contracting programs (e.g., 8(a) 
request for reconsideration and annual review) and believes that these 
processes have worked well for these programs and should therefore be 
utilized for the HUBZone program.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Overall, this proposed rule would 
reduce annual burden on HUBZone small business concerns. The proposed 
implementation of a formal request for reconsideration process would 
provide consistency in the processes for SBA's programs and would be 
beneficial to HUBZone applicants because it would allow them to correct 
deficiencies and come into compliance without waiting 90 days to 
reapply for the program. This should enable additional firms to be more 
quickly certified for the HUBZone program, allowing them to seek and be 
awarded HUBZone contracts sooner. SBA estimates that the proposed 
reconsideration process would increase the annual hourly burden on 
small business concerns applying to the HUBZone program by 
approximately 15 hours. The proposed requirement for HUBZone small 
business concerns to recertify annually to SBA that they continue to 
meet all of the HUBZone eligibility requirements, instead of requiring 
them to undergo a recertification every three years, would increase the 
annual hourly burden by approximately 3,800 hours. The proposed change 
removing the requirement for HUBZone small business concerns to 
represent or certify that they are eligible at the time of offer and 
award for every HUBZone contract would reduce burden on HUBZone small 
business concerns by approximately 4,200 hours. The proposed change to 
allow an employee who resides in a HUBZone at the time of a HUBZone 
concern's certification or recertification to continue to count as a 
HUBZone employee as long as the individual remains an employee of the 
firm will greatly reduce burden on firms, as they will not have to 
continuously track whether their employees still reside in a HUBZone or 
seek to employ new individuals if the location in which one or more 
current employees reside loses its HUBZone status. We estimate that 
this should reduce the hourly burden by 2,500 hours annually.
    Risks: There is very little risk associated with this proposed 
rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Meeting......................   04/23/18  83 FR 17626
Public Meeting......................   05/30/18  83 FR 24684
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Mariana Pardo, Director, Office of HUBZone, Small 
Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, 
Phone: 202 205-2985, Fax: 202 481-2675, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG38

SBA

158. Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-
Owned Small Business--Certification

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-291, sec. 825; 15 U.S.C. 637(m)
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 127.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA), Public Law 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292, Dec. 19, 
2014, included language requiring that women-owned small business 
concerns and economically disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business 
concerns are certified by a Federal agency, a State government, the 
Administrator, or national certifying entity approved by the 
Administrator as a small business concern owned and controlled by 
women. This rule will propose the standards and procedures for 
participation in this certification program. This rule will also 
propose to revise the procedures for continuing eligibility, program 
examinations, protests, and appeals. The proposed revisions will 
reflect public comments that SBA received in response to the Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the agency issued in December 2016 
to solicit feedback on implementation of the program. Finally, SBA is 
planning to continue to utilize new technology to improve its 
efficiency and decrease small business burdens, and therefore, the new 
certification procedures will be based on an electronic application and 
certification process.
    Statement of Need: The proposed rule will implement the statutory 
requirement to certify Women Owned Small Business Concerns (WOSBs) for 
purposes of receiving set aside and sole source contracts under the 
WOSB program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: These proposed regulations implement 
section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015, Public Law 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292 (December 19, 2014) (2015 
NDAA).
    Alternatives: The proposed regulations are required to implement 
specific statutory provisions which require promulgation of 
implementing regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefit of the proposed 
regulation is a significant improvement in the confidence of 
contracting officers to make federal contract awards to eligible firms. 
Under the existing system, the burden of eligibility compliance was 
placed upon the awarding contracting officer. Under this new proposed 
rule, the burden is placed upon SBA. This will encourage more 
contracting officers to set-aside opportunities for WOSB Program 
participants as the validation process will be controlled by SBA in 
both the System for Award Management and the Dynamic Small Business 
Search.
    Risks: There is always a slight risk that an agency will award a 
set aside contract to a firm that is ineligible. Certification of firms 
prior to award will lessen this risk.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/18/15  80 FR 78984
ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/16/16  .......................
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Kenneth Dodds, Director, Office of Policy, Planning 
and

[[Page 57965]]

Liaison, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 619-1766, Fax: 202 481-2950, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG75

SBA

159.  Implementation of the Small Business 7(A) Lending 
Oversight Reform Act of 2018

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Other.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 657t
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 120; 13 CFR 134.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 21, 2019.
    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
section, the Administrator shall issue regulations, after opportunity 
for notice and comment.
    Abstract: The Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 
2018 was enacted on June 21, 2018. The purpose of the legislation is to 
strengthen the Office of Credit Risk Management within the Small 
Business Administration. The statute requires the SBA Administrator to 
promulgate new regulations not later than one year after enactment of 
the statute. This rule will propose to implement this statute and add 
clarity to informal and formal enforcement actions and appeal 
provisions. Examples of informal enforcement actions may include 
supervisory letters and voluntary actions/agreements. Examples of 
formal enforcement actions include suspension or revocation of 
delegated authority, suspension or revocation of 7(a) lending 
authority, and assessment of civil monetary penalties. The statute also 
provides lenders with the ability to appeal enforcement actions to the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals. The rule will propose conditions for 
accessing this appeal process.
    Statement of Need: This action is necessary to implement the Small 
Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-189) 
(the Act), which was enacted on June 21, 2018. In the legislation, 
Congress strengthened the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management 
(OCRM). This rule will provide additional regulatory guidance for 
informal and formal enforcement actions against SBA Lenders, including 
the new statutory authority to impose Civil Monetary Penalties up to 
$250,000. The rule will also conform the enforcement action appeals 
process to the statutory requirements. Congress has specifically 
required SBA to promulgate regulations implementing the legislation 
within one year of enactment. This rule will increase SBA's lender 
oversight capabilities, mitigate risk, and ensure the integrity of 
SBA's small business loan programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 15 U.S.C. 657t(f) requires SBA to issue 
regulations, after opportunity for notice and comment, no later than 
one year after enactment. SBA is also authorized to supervise and 
oversee SBA Lenders under 15 U.S.C. 633(b)(3); 15 U.S.C. 634 note; 15 
U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (7) and (14); and 15 U.S.C. 650.
    Alternatives: The Act requires SBA to issue regulations within one 
year after enactment. During the notice and comment process, SBA will 
consider various alternatives as it implements the statutory 
requirements while strengthening SBA lender oversight, ensuring the 
integrity of the SBA loan programs, and protecting taxpayer dollars.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA is not yet certain of the 
anticipated costs and benefits. SBA will be assessing the costs and 
benefits as it develops the rule during the notice and comment process.
    Risks: Implementation of the Act through this rulemaking will 
encourage SBA Lenders to correct deficiencies, return SBA loan 
portfolios to safe and sound condition, and limit risk in the SBA loan 
programs. Codification of SBA's new authority to impose Civil Monetary 
Penalties up to $250,000 will provide a significant financial 
disincentive to imprudent and risky lending.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Susan Streich, Director of Credit Risk Management, 
Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, 
Phone: 202 205-6641, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AH05

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR)

    The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was established to codify 
uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by executive 
agencies. It is issued and maintained jointly under the statutory 
authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense, Administrator of 
General Services, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, known as the FAR Council. Overall statutory authority 
is found at chapters 11 and 13 of title 41 of the United States Code.

Regulatory and Deregulatory Activities

    Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' 
(February 24, 2017), required the FAR Council to oversee the 
implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies. The 
reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, 
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (January 30, 
2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (September 30, 1993). In response to 
Executive Order 13777, the FAR Council reviewed and evaluated existing 
policies and regulations and identified regulations that could be 
repealed, replaced, or modified to reduce the regulatory burden. In 
relation to Executive Order 13771, the FAR Council conducts analysis of 
the regulatory cost or savings impact for agenda items.
    During Fiscal Year 2018, the FAR Council completed two (2) 
deregulatory actions.
     The FAR Council issued a final rule (case 2015-039) on May 
1, 2018 to increase the dollar threshold for the audit of prime 
contract settlement proposals and subcontract settlements submitted in 
the event of contract termination, from $100,000 to $750,000. The 
increased threshold reduces the number of terminated contracts that 
require settlement audits, and enables contracting officers to more 
quickly deobligate the excess funds from terminated contracts under the 
threshold. Contractors will save costs associated with the preparation 
for termination settlement audits and will have improved cash flow from 
faster final settlement under the threshold.
     The FAR Council issued a final rule (case 2017-007) on May 
1, 2018 to raise the threshold for task- and delivery-order protests 
for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard from $10 million to $25 million, 
except for a protest on the grounds that the order increases the scope, 
period, or maximum value of the contract. The increased threshold will 
result in savings for the agencies involved in processing the protests 
and will benefit contractors who win awards and will no longer need to 
expend

[[Page 57966]]

resources defending challenges to those awards.
    The Fiscal Year 2019 Unified Agenda consists of forty-eight (48) 
agenda items of which the following seven (7) have been identified as 
deregulatory.

 FAR Case 2016-011, Revision of Limitations on Subcontracting
 FAR Case 2017-009, Special Emergency Procurement Authority
 FAR Case 2017-010, Evaluation Factors for Multiple-Award 
Contracts
 FAR Case 2018-004, Increased Micro-Purchase and Simplified 
Acquisition Thresholds
 FAR Case 2018-013, Exemption of Commercial and COTS Item 
Contracts from Certain Laws and Regulations
 FAR Case 2018-015, Governmentwide and Other Interagency 
Contracts
 FAR Case 2018-019, Review of Commercial Contract Clause 
Requirements and Flowdown

Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The FAR Council is required to amend the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation to implement statutory and policy initiatives. The FAR 
Council prioritization is focused on initiatives that:

 Streamline regulations and reduce burden, especially for 
commercial and commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items;
 Promote disclosure and open government
 Support national security efforts, especially safeguarding 
Federal Government information technology systems; and
 Improve small business opportunities with the Federal 
Government.

Rulemakings That Streamline Regulations and Reduce Burdens

    FAR Case 2018-004, Increased Micro-Purchase and Simplified 
Acquisition Thresholds, will increase the micro-purchase threshold 
(MPT) to $10,000; increase the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) 
to $250,000; and make additional changes related to the thresholds. The 
increase in thresholds will allow the use of more streamlined 
procedures which reduces the time and effort needed to make an award. 
Some contractors will benefit from reduced contract compliance 
requirements.
    FAR Case 2018-013, Exemption of Commercial and COTS Item Contracts 
from Certain Laws and Regulations, will implement revisions to the FAR 
to exempt commercial and COTS items from laws identified by the FAR 
Council or Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy. This reduction 
will allow contractors to use existing commercial practices, reducing 
compliance costs from requirements unique to the Government.
    FAR Case 2018-014, Increasing Task-order Level Competition, will 
provide an exception to the requirement to consider price as an 
evaluation factor, for the award of services to be acquired on an 
hourly rate basis under certain indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity 
contracts and Federal Supply Schedule contracts. Meaningful evaluation 
of cost and price takes place later, when task or delivery order 
proposals are evaluated. The exception will allow procurement officials 
to focus on establishing and evaluating non-price factors at the 
earlier contract award level, resulting in more meaningful distinctions 
among offerors.

Rulemakings That Promote Disclosure and Open Government

    FAR Case 2017-004, Use of Acquisition 360 to Encourage Vendor 
Feedback, will address soliciting contractor feedback on how well 
agencies are doing in awarding and administering contracts. This will 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agency acquisition 
activities.
    FAR Case 2016-005, Effective Communication between Government and 
Industry, encourages agency acquisition personnel to talk to industry.

Rulemakings That Support National Security

    FAR Case 2018-017, Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and 
Video Surveillance Services or Equipment, will prohibit the procurement 
of covered equipment and services from Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE 
Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Technology 
Company or Dahua Technology Company and any subsidiaries or affiliates. 
The prohibition is implemented to protect Government information 
systems from threats.
    FAR Case 2018-010, Use of Product and Services of Kaspersky Lab, 
prohibits any department, agency, organization or other element of the 
Federal Government from using hardware, software or services developed 
by Kaspersky Lab or any entity in which Kaspersky Lab has a majority 
ownership. The prohibition is implemented to protect Government 
information systems from threats.
    FAR Case 2017-018, Violation of Arms Control Treaties or Agreements 
with the United States, prohibits, with some exceptions, the heads of 
executive agencies from entering into, renewing or extending a contract 
for the procurement of products or services from any persons involved 
in activities that violate arms control treaties or agreements with the 
United States. The prohibition reduces potential threats to the 
security of the United States and our allies.

Rulemakings of Interest to Small Business

    FAR Case 2016-011, Revision of Limitations on Subcontracting, will 
implement SBA's regulatory clarifications concerning the 
nonmanufacturer rule, and how much a small business may subcontract to 
a large business. These were inconsistent across small business 
programs, such as whether a HUBZone small business could subcontract to 
other HUBZone small businesses. This rule revises and standardizes 
these requirements from multiple FAR clauses to two.
    FAR Case 2018-003, Credit for Lower-Tier Small Business 
Subcontracting will allow large businesses to receive small business 
subcontracting credit for subcontracts that their subcontractors award 
to small businesses.

    Dated: July 27, 2018.

William F. Clark,

Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of 
Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

I. Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance 
programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act, 
and the Special Veterans Benefits program under title VIII of the Act. 
As directed by Congress, we also assist in administering portions of 
the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. Our regulations 
codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits and 
our procedures for administering these programs. Generally, our 
regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or 
local governments, except for the States' Disability Determination 
Services. We fully fund the Disability Determination Services in 
advance or via reimbursement for necessary costs in making disability 
determinations.
    The entries in our regulatory plan (plan) represent issues of major 
importance to the Agency. Through our regulatory plan, we intend to:

[[Page 57967]]

    A. Update the medical criteria used to evaluate disability 
applications to keep pace with medicine, science, technology, and 
workforce changes;
    B. Reduce the hearings backlog and improve the disability appeals 
process;
    C. Update SSA disability evaluation criteria and the frequency of 
continuing disability reviews;
    D. Combat Social Security fraud, impose civil monetary penalties 
for specific violations of the Social Security Act, and clarify that 
electronic and internet communications are included in the prohibitions 
against misusing SSA's names, symbols, and emblems; and
    E. Update our Freedom of Information Act and Privacy and Disclosure 
rules.

Regulatory Reform

    We designate all of the proposed regulations in this plan as 
``fully or partially exempt'' under Executive Order (E.O.) 13771. In 
compliance with the Administration's Regulatory Reform efforts, as 
prescribed by E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, SSA is committed to engaging 
in regulatory activity only when strictly necessary and to reducing 
regulatory burden wherever possible. Accordingly, our Unified Agenda 
and Regulatory Plan include only those regulatory activities needed to 
administer our Social Security benefits and payments programs. 
Moreover, the Agenda includes an item to remove outdated regulatory 
sections from the Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, we remain 
committed to innovate in ways that ease burden on the public even 
outside the realm of formal deregulation, such as through developing 
online reporting and application tools.

II. Regulations in the Proposed Rule Stage

    Our regulations will:
     Selectively update the medical listings for evaluating 
digestive, cardiovascular, and skin disorders (RIN 0960-AG65);
     Increase the number of disability hearings held via video 
teleconference, where appropriate, to help make the hearings process 
more efficient (RIN 0960-AI09);
     Clarify that administrative appeals judges from our 
Appeals Council may hold hearings and issue decisions (RIN 0960-AI25);
     Remove the education category of ``inability to 
communicate in English'' to help us more accurately assess the 
vocational impact of education in the disability determination process 
(0960-AH86);
     Add a new category to the existing medical diary 
categories that we use to schedule continuing disability reviews and 
revise the criteria we follow to place a case in each of the categories 
(0960-AI27);
     Clarify our rules regarding the redetermination of 
entitlement when fraud or similar fault is involved (RIN 0960-AI10);
     Impose that SSA can assess the maximum allowable civil 
monetary penalty for certain violations of the Social Security Act (RIN 
0960-AH91);
     Clarify that electronic and internet communications are 
included in the prohibitions against misusing SSA's names, symbols, and 
emblems (0960-AI04);
     Update our Freedom of Information Act policies to reflect 
recent legislation (RIN 0960-AI07);
     Allow SSA to create a new Privacy Act exemption category, 
enabling the retention of important records related to security and 
suitability (RIN 0960-AH97); and
     Clarify that written consent includes electronic consent, 
in compliance with recent legislation (RIN 0960-AI38).

III. Regulations in the Final Rule Stage

    Our regulation in the final rule stage will:
     Comprehensively update the medical listings for evaluating 
musculoskeletal disorders (RIN 0960-AG38); and
     Allow SSA to create a new Privacy Act exemption category, 
enabling the retention of important records containing investigatory 
material compiled for law enforcement purposes (RIN 0960-AI08).

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), SSA regularly 
engages in retrospective review and analysis for multiple existing 
regulatory initiatives. These initiatives may be proposed or completed 
actions, and they do not necessarily appear in The Regulatory Plan. You 
can find more information on these completed rulemakings in past 
publications of the Unified Agenda at www.reginfo.gov in the 
``Completed Actions'' section for the Social Security Administration.

SSA

Proposed Rule Stage

160. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Digestive Disorders, 
Cardiovascular Disorders, and Skin Disorders

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 4.00 and 104.00, Cardiovascular System; sections 
5.00 and 105.00, Digestive System; and sections 8.00 and 108.00, Skin 
Disorders, of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations 
describe those disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent a 
person from doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe 
functional limitations for a child claiming Supplemental Security 
Income payments under title XVI. We are proposing to revise the 
criteria in these sections to ensure that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up to date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These proposed revisions are necessary to 
evaluate claims for Social Security disability benefits.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 4.00 and 104.00, Cardiovascular 
Systems; sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive Systems; and sections 8.00 
and 108.00, Skin Disorders, of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of 
our regulations.
    This proposed rule is not required by statute or court order.
    Alternatives: We considered continuing to use our current criteria. 
However, we believe these proposed revisions are necessary because of 
advances in medical, technology, and treatment since we last revised 
these rules.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Ensuring that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge, technology, and treatment will provide for accurate 
disability evaluations. Costs: None.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/12/07  72 FR 70527

[[Page 57968]]

 
ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/11/08  .......................
NPRM................................   01/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: 
[email protected].
    Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-2733, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0960-AG74, Related to 0960-AG91
    RIN: 0960-AG65

SSA

161. Removing Inability To Communicate in English as an Education 
Category

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a) to 405(b); 42 
U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 U.S.C. 
421(h) to (j); 42 U.S.C. 422(c); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 425; 42 
U.S.C. 902(a)(5)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1564, part 404 subpart P app; 20 CFR 
416.964.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to revise existing disability evaluation rules 
relating to the ability to communicate in English. Specifically, we 
will clarify that an inability to communicate in English is not 
tantamount to illiteracy or inadequate verbal communication. Rather, an 
inability to communicate adequately verbally or in writing in any 
language will be the effective standard. The proposed revisions will 
reflect current research, analysis of our disability program data, 
Federal agency data about workforce participation, and comments we 
received from the public in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
    Statement of Need: These changes would modernize our disability 
program consistent with current research and data about disability and 
workforce participation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5). Multiple sections of 
the Social Security Act. No aspect is required by statute or court 
order.
    Alternatives: Undetermined at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: No costs on the public are 
anticipated as a result of this proposed rule. Benefits include more 
consistent and appropriate evaluations of vocational factors by 
eliminating the false equivalence between an inability to communicate 
in English and illiteracy.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Daniel O'Brien, Director, Office of Retirement and 
Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, Office of 
Vocational, Evaluation, and Process Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 597-1632.
    RIN: 0960-AH86

SSA

162. Newer and Stronger Penalties (Conforming Changes)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, sec. 813; 42 U.S.C. 
1320a-8
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 498.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 813 of the BBA establishes civil monetary 
penalties in section 1129 of the Social Security Act against 
individuals in a position of trust that make false statements, 
misrepresentations, or omissions in connection with obtaining or 
retaining SSA benefits or payments. Section 813 also establishes a new 
felony for conspiracy to commit Social Security fraud, and increases 
felony penalties for individuals in positions of trust who defraud the 
SSA.
    Statement of Need: Upon enactment of the BBA on November 2, 2015, 
civil monetary penalties for individuals in a position of trust took 
effect immediately. Imposing penalties against individuals in a 
position of trust assists in deterring fraud and maintaining the 
integrity of SSA's disability programs. The regulations at 20 CFR 498 
should be updated to reflect the BBA's provisions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 813 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2015.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SSA projects no anticipated costs on 
the public with completing this regulatory action. Costs for the agency 
are as yet undetermined, but are expected to be mostly administrative 
in nature. Benefits include strengthening our civil monetary assessment 
processes.
    Risks: No risk is anticipated since this regulatory action reflects 
statutory requirements and authority.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Ranju R. Shrestha, Office of the Inspector General, 
Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 
21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-4440, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH91

SSA

163. Privacy Act Exemption: Personnel Security and Suitability Program 
Files

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 522a; 5 U.S.C. 553
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 401.85.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This NPRM will propose to create a Security and 
Suitability Files system to cover any additional security and 
suitability related information generated by SSA that is not sent to 
the Office of Personnel Management. We will use the information we 
collect to conduct background investigations and establish that 
applicants or incumbents, either employed by SSA or working for SSA 
under contract, are suitable for employment with us. Additionally, the 
NPRM will propose to remove two unused systems listed in our 
regulations.
    Statement of Need: We are required to amend our Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) when a new system of records is

[[Page 57969]]

instituted within the agency that exempts certain records from 
disclosure. Here, we are creating a new system of records and an 
exemption to disclosure of some of those records, necessitating a new 
system of records disclosure in our CFR.
    This update will replace the two following systems of records 
currently reflected in 401.85:
    (iii) Pursuant to subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act:
    (A) The Investigatory Material Compiled for Security and 
Suitability Purposes System, SSA; and,
    (B) The Suitability for Employment Records, SSA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 
U.S.C. 552a), and Subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act, we are issuing 
public notice of our intent to establish a new system of records.
    Alternatives: There is no alternative. Failure to amend our CFR, 
while using a new system of records, would be contrary to the statutory 
authority and intent of 5 U.S.C. 552.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs. We 
stand to benefit through better administrative efficiency by updating 
the systems we use for accurately tracking investigatory employment 
records.
    Risks: Violation of the Privacy Act and OMB requirements.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Pamela Carcirieri, Division Director, Social 
Security Administration, Office of General Counsel, Office of Privacy 
and Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235-6401, 
Phone: 410 965-0355, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH97

SSA

164. References to Social Security and Medicare in Electronic 
Communications

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), sec. 814; 42 
U.S.C. 1320b-10
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 498.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 814 of the BBA clarifies that electronic and 
internet communications are included in the prohibitions against 
misusing SSA's names, symbols, and emblems to convey the false 
impression that such items are approved, endorsed, or authorized by 
SSA, as stated in section 1140 of the Social Security Act. For those 
misusing SSA's names, symbols, and emblems, it treats each 
dissemination, viewing, or accessing of a communication as a separate 
violation.
    Statement of Need: Section 814 of the BBA took effect upon 
enactment. However, our regulations do not currently reflect this 
statutory change. Imposing penalties against persons who commit 
consumer fraud deters fraud and maintains the integrity of SSA 
programs. The regulations at 20 CFR part 498 should be updated to 
reflect the BBA's Section 814 provisions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this action is section 
814 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which went into effect on 
November 2, 2015.
    42 U.S.C. 1320b-10
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs 
associated with this regulatory action. However, the benefit of this 
regulatory action is that it will clarify the applicability of section 
1140 to electronic and internet communications and minimize unnecessary 
litigation as to the applicability of the section 1140 statute.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Ranju Shrestha, Chief Counsel to the Inspector 
General, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Woodlawn, MD 21235, Phone: 410 966-4440, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI04

SSA

165. Availability of Information and Records to the Public

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-185, FOIA Reform Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C. 
552
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 402.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, December 27, 2016, FOIA Reform 
Act 2016. Other, Statutory, 12/27/2016, FOIA Reform Act 2016.
    Abstract: Revisions of our FOIA regulations will address the 
requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and ensure that our 
regulations are consistent with all applicable laws.
    Statement of Need: Revisions of our FOIA regulation will address 
the requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and ensure that 
our regulations are consistent with all applicable laws.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FOIA Reform Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C. 552.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs to 
the implementation of the statutory requirements.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Monica Chyn, Division Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of General Counsel, Office of Privacy and 
Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235, Phone: 410 
965-0817, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI07

SSA

166. Setting the Manner for the Appearance of Parties and Witnesses at 
a Hearing

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 401(j); 42 U.S.C. 404(f); 42 U.S.C. 
405(a) to 405(b); 42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); . . 
.
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.914; 20 CFR 404.929; 20 CFR 404.936; 20 
CFR 404.938; 20 CFR 404.950; 20 CFR 404.976; 20 CFR 416.1414; 20 CFR 
416.1429; 20 CFR 416.1436; 20 CFR 416.1438; 20 CFR 416.1450; 20 CFR 
416.1476; . . .
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to revise and unify some of the rules that 
govern how,

[[Page 57970]]

where, and when individuals appear for hearings before an 
administrative law judge at the hearings level and before a disability 
hearing officer at the reconsideration level of our administrative 
review process. At both levels, when we schedule a hearing, we propose 
that we will determine the manner in which the parties to the hearing 
will appear: By VTC, in person, or, under limited circumstances, by 
telephone. We would not permit individuals to opt out of appearing by 
VTC. We also propose that we would determine the manner in which 
witnesses to a hearing will appear.
    Statement of Need: With just over 880,000 individuals waiting for a 
hearing before an administrative law judge, we must ensure that we make 
the best use our resources to decrease the number of pending cases, 
reduce the average wait time, and significantly improve our service to 
the American public. Expanding our use of VTC technology would enable 
us to schedule many hearings sooner. This not only reduces the delays 
in claimants waiting for a hearing, but also gives us more flexibility 
in scheduling and allocating resources for in-person hearings to those 
cases that truly warrant an in-person, rather than a VTC, hearing. Some 
travel costs may be reduced as well, since there may be less need for 
in-person hearings to areas that can be serviced by more VTC hearings 
instead.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We anticipate increased 
administrative and adjudicatory efficiency benefiting a reduction in 
hearing delays.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Susan Swansiger, Director, Division of Field 
Procedures, Social Security Administration, Office of Hearing 
Operations, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1608, Falls Church, VA 22041-
3260, Phone: 703 605-8593.
    RIN: 0960-AI09

SSA

167. Redeterminations When There is a Reason To Believe Fraud or 
Similar Fault Was Involved in an Individual's Application for Benefits

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) and 1129(l) of the Social 
Security Act; 42 U.S.C. 405(u); 42 U.S.C. 1383(e)(7); 42 U.S.C. 1320a-
8(l)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We are clarifying our rules regarding the redetermination 
of the entitlement or eligibility of individuals when there is reason 
to believe fraud or similar fault was involved in the individual's 
application for benefits. We intend to clarify how and when we 
redetermine the entitlement, and the administrative review process when 
we decide to terminate benefits.
    Statement of Need: Over time, our business processes evolved to 
support our statutory redetermination authority. We are now codifying 
the basic parameters for redetermination, including relevant 
definitions, clarification of notice and redetermination procedures, as 
well as a process for administratively reviewing redetermination 
termination and overpayment assessment decisions under secs. 205(u) and 
1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act, to provide the public the 
opportunity for comment under the Administrative Procedures Act while 
providing our beneficiaries and their representatives the ability to 
find our redetermination process within our regulatory text.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 205(u), 1129(l), and 1631(e)(7) of 
the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 405(u)(1), 1320a-8(l), and 
1383(e)(7).
    206(d) of Pub. L. 103-296, the Social Security Independence and 
Program Improvements Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 1464, 1509.
    Alternatives: We could continue to manage our redetermination 
processes and procedures under our statutory authority and sub-
regulatory guidances.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Without enumerated regulations, we 
may experience additional litigation alleging lack of due process and 
violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
    Risks: Without enumerated regulations, we may experience litigation 
alleging lack of due process and violation of the Administrative 
Procedures Act.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Nancy Chung, Social Security Administration, Office 
of Analytics, Review, and Oversight, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, 
VA 22041, Phone: 703 605-7100, Email: [email protected].
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI10

SSA

168. Hearings Held by Administrative Appeals Judges of the Appeals 
Council

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 405(a) to 405(b); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 402.60; 20 CFR 404.2; 20 CFR 404.929; 20 CFR 
404.955; 20 CFR 404.956; 20 CFR 404.970; 20 CFR 404.973; 20 CFR 
404.976; 20 CFR 404.983; 20 CFR 404.984; 20 CFR 404.999c; 20 CFR 
404.1765; 20 CFR 408.110; 20 CFR 411.175; 20 CFR 416.120; 20 CFR 
416.1429; 20 CFR 416.1455; 20 CFR 416.1456; 20 CFR 416.1470; 20 CFR 
416.1473; 20 CFR 416.1476; 20 CFR 416.1483-1484; 20 CFR 416.1498; 20 
CFR 416.1565; 20 CFR 422.201; 20 CFR 422.203; 20 CFR 422.205; 20 CFR 
422.210; . . .
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to revise our rules to clarify when 
administrative appeals judges (AAJ) from our Appeals Council may hold 
hearings and issue decisions. We propose that in all situations where 
an AAJ would conduct a hearing and issue a decision, the AAJ would 
adhere to the same due process requirements as administrative law 
judges. We also propose to update and clarify our regulations to 
conform to our current business processes and organizational 
components.
    Statement of Need: Ensuring that we make the best use of all of our 
resources is an important part of our ongoing effort to decrease the 
number of pending hearing cases, reduce the average wait

[[Page 57971]]

time, and significantly improve our service to the American public. 
Having AAJs conduct hearings will help achieve those goals.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative, not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We would continue our current adjudicatory 
procedures.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We do not anticipate this proposal 
would impose any costs on the public. Although specific figures are not 
available at this time, we anticipate there may be some administrative 
costs to SSA for this proposal, specifically related to training and 
new notices. Given the historic backlog and waiting times for a 
hearing, the benefits of this proposal, faster hearings and case 
resolutions, are potentially significant.
    Risks: NA.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Nancy Chung, Acting Director Program Analysis 
Staff, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls 
Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 605-7100, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI25

SSA

169. Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability 
Reviews

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: Social Security Act; sec. 221 (i) of the Social 
Security Act
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404 subpart P; 20 CFR 416 subpart I; 20 CFR 
404.1590; 20 CFR 416.989; 20 CFR 416.990; . . .
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to revise our rules regarding when and how 
often we conduct continuing disability reviews (CDR). The proposed 
regulations would add a new category to our existing medical diary 
categories that we use to schedule CDRs and would revise the criteria 
we follow to place a case in each of the categories. They would also 
change how often we perform a CDR for claims with the medical diary 
category for permanent impairments. These revised regulations would 
ensure that we continue to identify medical improvement at its earliest 
point and remain up to date with current research.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to reform the process by 
which we conduct CDRs to ensure that we continue to identify medical 
improvement at its earliest point and remain up-to-date with current 
research.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The effects of this proposed rule 
are not yet determined. Our Office of the Chief Actuary and Office of 
Budget will formally estimate the programmatic and administrative 
effects of the NPRM when the proposal is fully drafted.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl Williams, Social Security Administration, 
Office of Disability Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 
21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-4163, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI27

SSA

170.  Privacy and Disclosure of Official Records and 
Information

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a; S.2155, Economic Growth, Regulatory 
Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 401.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This NPRM will update the Agency's regulations at 20 CFR 
401. Section 215 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and 
Consumer Protection Act directs us to modify or develop a database to 
facilitate the verification of certain information with the consumer's 
consent and in connection with a credit transaction. The agency is 
modifying our regulations to clarify that written consent, as required 
under the Privacy Act, includes electronic consent.
    Statement of Need: An update to the Agency's regulations at 20 CFR 
401 is required to implement section 215 of the Economic Growth and 
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs to 
the implementation of the statutory requirements.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Keisha J. Mahoney, Government Information 
Specialist, Program Analyst, Social Security Administration, Office of 
the General Counsel, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-9048, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI38

SSA

Final Rule Stage

171. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders 
(3318P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app. 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 1.00 and 101.00, Musculoskeletal System, of 
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe those 
musculoskeletal system disorders that we consider severe enough to 
prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked 
and severe functional limitations for a child. We propose to revise the 
criteria in these sections to reflect our adjudicative experience, 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment of musculoskeletal 
disorders, and comments from medical experts.
    Statement of Need: These rules are necessary to evaluate claims for 
Social Security disability benefits.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.

[[Page 57972]]

    Alternatives: We considered continuing to use our current criteria. 
However, we believe these proposed revisions are necessary to ensure 
that our criteria reflect advances in medical knowledge and treatment 
since we last revised these rules.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Ensuring that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge, technology, and treatment will provide for accurate 
disability evaluations.
    Risks: We expect the public and adjudicators to support the removal 
and clarification of ambiguous terms and phrases, and the addition of 
specific, demonstrable functional criteria for determining listing-
level severity of all musculoskeletal disorders.
    We expect adjudicators to support the change in the framework of 
the text because it makes the guidance in the introductory text and 
listings easier to access and understand.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/07/18  83 FR 20646
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/06/18
Final Action........................   09/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance Specialist, Social 
Security Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-2733, Email: 
[email protected].
    Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security Administration, 
Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-
6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: [email protected].
    Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-7102, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AG38

SSA

172. Privacy Act Exemption: Social Security Administration Violence 
Evaluation and Reporting System (SSAvers)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Fully or Partially Exempt.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 401.85.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will exempt a portion of a system of records 
entitled Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and 
Reporting System (SSAvers) from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. 
Because this system will contain some investigatory material compiled 
for law enforcement purposes, this rule will exempt those records 
within this new system of records from specific provisions of the 
Privacy Act.
    Statement of Need: Because this system will contain some 
investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, this rule 
will exempt those records within this new system of records from 
specific provisions of the Privacy Act. SSAvers captures and houses 
information regarding alleged incidents of workplace and domestic 
violence filed by SSA employees and SSA contractors.
    It is required for compliance with the Privacy Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs to 
the operation of this system.
    Risks: There are no risks for the operation of this system of 
records.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/14/18  83 FR 27728
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/16/18
Final Action........................   10/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Pamela Carcirieri, Division Director, Social 
Security Administration, Office of General Counsel, Office of Privacy 
and Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, MD 21235-6401, 
Phone: 410 965-0355, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI08

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)

    Statement of Regulatory Priorities: The U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from 
unreasonable risks of death and injury associated with consumer 
products. To achieve this goal, among other things, the CPSC:
     Develops mandatory product safety standards or bans when 
other efforts are inadequate to address a safety hazard, or where 
required by statute;
     obtains repair, replacement, or refunds for defective 
products that present a substantial product hazard;
     develops information and education campaigns about the 
safety of consumer products;
     participates in the development or revision of voluntary 
product safety standards; and
     follows statutory mandates.
    Unless directed otherwise by congressional mandate, when deciding 
which of these approaches to take in any specific case, the CPSC 
gathers and analyzes data about the nature and extent of the risk 
presented by the product. The Commission's rules at 16 CFR 1009.8 
require the Commission to consider, among other factors, the following 
criteria, when deciding the level of priority for any particular 
project:
     Frequency and severity of injury;
     causality of injury;
     chronic illness and future injuries;
     costs and benefits of Commission action;
     unforeseen nature of the risk;
     vulnerability of the population at risk;
     probability of exposure to the hazard; and
     additional criteria that warrant Commission attention.
    Significant Regulatory Actions: Currently, the Commission is 
considering taking action in the next 12 months on two rules, table 
saws (RIN 3041-AC31) and portable generators (RIN 3041-AC36), which 
would constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
definition of that term in Executive Order 12866.

1. Table Saws

    In 2006, the Commission granted a petition requesting a rule to 
establish performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent 
injuries from contacting the blade of a table saw. The Commission has 
since issued a proposed rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act 
(CPSA). The regulatory proceeding could result in several actions, one 
of which could be

[[Page 57973]]

the development of a mandatory standard.

2. Portable Generators

    The Commission has been considering options to reduce deaths and 
injuries related to portable generators, particularly those involving 
carbon monoxide poisoning. In 2016, the Commission issued a proposed 
rule under the CPSA. The regulatory proceeding could result in several 
actions, one of which could be the development of a mandatory standard.

CPSC

Final Rule Stage

173. Regulatory Options for Table Saws

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553(e); 15 U.S.C. 2051
    CFR Citation: 16 CFR 1245.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On July 11, 2006, the Commission voted to grant a 
petition requesting that the Commission issue a rule prescribing 
performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from 
contacting the blade of a table saw. The Commission also directed CPSC 
staff to prepare an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 
initiating a rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety 
Act (CPSA) to: (1) Identify the risk of injury associated with table 
saw blade-contact injuries; (2) summarize regulatory alternatives; and 
(3) invite comments from the public. An ANPRM was published on October 
11, 2011. The comment period ended on February 10, 2012. Staff 
participated in the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) working group to 
develop performance requirements for table saws, conducted performance 
tests on sample table saws, conducted survey work on blade guard use, 
and evaluated comments to the ANPRM. Staff prepared a briefing package 
with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and submitted the package 
to the Commission on January 17, 2017. The Commission voted to publish 
the NPRM, and the comment period for the NPRM closed on July 26, 2017. 
Public oral testimony to the Commission was heard on August 9, 2017. 
Staff conducted a study of table saw incidents that occurred and were 
reported through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System 
(NEISS) between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. Staff prepared a 
report summarizing the 2017 study findings and will submit to the 
Commission to publish a notice in the Federal Register. Staff will 
prepare a final rule briefing package for Commission consideration in 
FY 2019.
    Statement of Need:
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives: The Commission could (1) pursue table saw voluntary 
standard activities; (2) extend the effective dates of a possible rule; 
(3) exempt certain categories of table saws from the draft proposed 
rule; (4) limit the applicability of the performance requirements to 
some, but not all, tables saws; or (5) pursue an information and 
education campaign to inform the public of the hazards of blade contact 
and the benefits of the AIM technology.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The expected gross benefits range 
from about $970 million to $2.45 billion over the product life of 1 
year of sales. The expected costs of the draft proposed rule will range 
from about $168 million to about $345 million annually. Based on 
staff's benefit and cost estimates, net benefits (i.e., benefits minus 
costs) for the market as a whole were estimated to amount to about $625 
million to $2.3 billion over the product life of 1 year of table saw 
sales.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Decision to Grant           07/11/06
 Petition.
ANPRM...............................   10/11/11  76 FR 62678
Notice of Extension of Time for        12/02/11  76 FR 75504
 Comments.
ANPRM Comment Period End............   12/12/11
Comment Period End..................   02/10/12
Notice to Reopen Comment Period.....   02/15/12  77 FR 8751
Reopened Comment Period End.........   03/16/12
Staff Sent NPRM Briefing Package to    01/17/17
 Commission.
Commission Decision.................   04/27/17
NPRM................................   05/12/17  82 FR 22190
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/26/17
Public Hearing......................   08/09/17  82 FR 31035
Staff Sent 2016 NEISS Table Saw Type   08/15/17
 Study Status Report to Commission.
Staff Sends Final Rule Briefing        09/00/19
 Package to Commission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, Directorate for 
Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National 
Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 
20850, Phone: 301 987-2225, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3041-AC31

CPSC

174. Portable Generators

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2051
    CFR Citation: 16 CFR 1241.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On December 5, 2006, the Commission voted to issue an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) under the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (CPSA) concerning portable generators. The ANPRM 
discusses regulatory options that could reduce deaths and injuries 
related to portable generators, particularly those involving carbon 
monoxide (CO) poisoning. The ANPRM was published in the Federal 
Register on December 12, 2006. Staff reviewed public comments and 
conducted technical activities. In FY 2006, staff awarded a contract to 
develop a prototype generator engine with reduced CO in the exhaust. 
Also in FY 2006, staff entered into an interagency agreement (IAG) with 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to conduct 
tests with a generator, in both off-the-shelf and prototype 
configurations, operating in the garage attached to NIST's test house. 
NIST's test house, a double-wide manufactured home, is designed for 
conducting residential indoor air quality (IAQ) studies, and the 
scenarios tested are typical of those involving consumer

[[Page 57974]]

fatalities. These tests provide empirical data on CO accumulation in 
the garage and infiltration into the house; staff used these data to 
evaluate the efficacy of the prototype in reducing the risk of fatal or 
severe CO poisoning. Under this IAG, NIST also modeled the CO 
infiltration from the garage under a variety of other conditions, 
including different ambient conditions and longer generator run times. 
In FY 2009, staff entered into a second IAG with NIST with the goal of 
developing CO emission performance requirements for a possible proposed 
regulation that would be based on health effects criteria. In 2011, 
staff prepared a package containing staff and contractor reports on the 
technology demonstration of the low CO emission prototype portable 
generator. This included, among other staff reports, a summary of the 
prototype development and durability results, as well as end-of-life 
emission test results performed on the generator by an independent 
emissions laboratory. Staff's assessment of the ability of the 
prototype to reduce the CO poisoning hazard was also included. In 
September 2012, staff released this package and solicited comments from 
stakeholders.
    In October 2016, staff delivered a briefing package with a draft 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to the Commission. In November 
2016, the Commission voted to approve the NPRM. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2016, with a comment 
period deadline of February 6, 2017. In December 2016, the Commission 
voted to extend the comment period until April 24, 2017, in response to 
a request to extend the comment period an additional 75 days. The 
Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2017, to provide an 
opportunity for stakeholders to present oral comments on the NPRM.
    Two voluntary standards now include requirements intended to 
address the CO poisoning hazard. Staff is assessing those standards, 
and in FY 2019 staff will prepare a final rule briefing package 
presenting staff's assessment and staff will deliver it to the 
Commission.
    Statement of Need:
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives: The Commission could (1) have less stringent (higher 
allowable) CO emission rates; (2) limit coverage to one-cylinder 
engines, exempting portable generators with two-cylinder, class II 
engines from the proposed rule; (3) mandate alternate means of limiting 
consumer exposure which could include automatic shutoff systems; (4) 
require different (longer) compliance dates; (5) implement 
informational measures; or (6) take no action to establish a mandatory 
standard.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The average present value of 
expected benefits per unit is $227. The cost to manufacturers and the 
lost consumer surplus amounts to an average of $116 per unit. The 
average net benefits (benefits minus costs) are $110 per unit. The 
aggregate net benefits from annual sales are $144.6 million.
    Risks: As of June 14, 2017, CPSC databases contained reports of at 
least 849 generator-related consumer CO-poisoning deaths resulting from 
629 incidents that occurred from 2005 through 2016.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Sent ANPRM to Commission......   07/06/06  .......................
Staff Sent Supplemental Material to    10/12/06  .......................
 Commission.
Commission Decision.................   10/26/06  .......................
Staff Sent Draft ANPRM to Commission   11/21/06  .......................
ANPRM...............................   12/12/06  71 FR 74472
ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/12/07  .......................
Staff Releases Research Report for     10/10/12  .......................
 Comment.
Staff Sends NPRM Briefing Package to   10/05/16  .......................
 Commission.
NPRM................................   11/21/16  81 FR 83556
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   12/13/16  81 FR 89888
Public Hearing for Oral Comments....   03/08/17  82 FR 8907
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/24/17  .......................
Staff Sends Final Rule Briefing        09/00/19  .......................
 Package to Commission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Janet L. Buyer, Project Manager, Directorate for 
Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National 
Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 
20850, Phone: 301 987-2293, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3041-AC36

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

I. Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Background

    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent 
agency charged by its enabling statute, the Federal Trade Commission 
Act (FTC Act), with protecting American consumers from ``unfair methods 
of competition'' and ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' in the 
marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers benefit 
from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's work is 
rooted in a belief that competition, based on truthful and non-
misleading information about products and services, provides consumers 
the best choice of products and services at the lowest prices.
    The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the 
marketplace through two different but complementary approaches. Through 
its consumer protection activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that 
consumers receive accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in 
the marketplace. At the same time, to ensure that consumers have a 
choice of products and services at competitive prices and quality, the 
marketplace must be policed for anticompetitive business practices and 
to prohibit anticompetitive mergers. These two complementary missions 
make the Commission unique insofar as it is the nation's only Federal 
agency with this combination of statutory authority to protect 
consumers.
    The Commission is charged with the responsibility of issuing and 
enforcing regulations under a number of statutes, including 16 trade 
regulation rules promulgated pursuant to the FTC Act and numerous 
regulations issued pursuant to certain credit, financial, and marketing 
practice statutes \3\ as well as energy laws.\4\ The Commission also 
has

[[Page 57975]]

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

    \3\ For example, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act) (15 U.S.C. 
7701-7713) and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 
Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101-6108).
    \4\ For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 2776, 
codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code, particularly 42 
U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 (EISA) (codified in relevant part at 42 U.S.C. 17021, 17301-
17305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the remainder of the Background section, the Commission sets 
out a brief overview of its ongoing law enforcement efforts, followed 
by a more detailed list of current regulatory reform-related 
initiatives and other focus areas.

(A) Law Enforcement Mission

    The Commission is, first and foremost, a civil law enforcement 
agency. It pursues its mandate to enhance competition and protect 
consumers primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the FTC Act and 
other statutes. The FTC estimates that, in FY 2017, the agency saved 
consumers more than $3.7 billion through its competition enforcement 
efforts and more than $1.29 billion through its consumer protection 
enforcement actions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FTC Report, Agency Financial Report for FY 2017, at 45 (Nov. 
16, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/agency-financial-report-fy2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Consumer Protection Enforcement. The agency has continued to 
pursue its long-standing consumer protection mission by initiating or 
obtaining settlements in 85 consumer protection cases in district 
court, reaching 24 administrative consent agreements related to 
consumer protection, and distributing in excess of $269 million in 
redress to more than three million consumers during the 2017 calendar 
year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FTC Press Release, Acting FTC Chairman Ohlhausen Reports One 
Year of Agency Accomplishments (Jan. 18, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/01/acting-ftc-chairman-ohlhausen-reports-one-year-agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A major focus of the FTC's law enforcement efforts is fighting 
fraud. The Commission's anti-fraud program tracks down and stops some 
of the most egregious scams that prey on U.S. consumers--often, the 
most vulnerable consumers who can least afford to lose money. Below are 
a few examples of the variety of frauds that the Commission has 
recently pursued, and ways that the Commission leverages its limited 
resources to do so effectively.
     Tech Support Scams: Last year, the FTC joined federal, 
state, and international law enforcement partners in announcing 
``Operation Tech Trap,'' a nationwide and international crackdown on 
tech support scams that trick consumers into believing their computers 
are infected with viruses and malware, and then charge them hundreds of 
dollars for unnecessary repairs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FTC Press Release, FTC and Federal, State and International 
Partners Announce Major Crackdown on Tech Support Scams (May 12, 
2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/05/ftc-federal-state-international-partners-announce-major-crackdown. ``Operation Tech Trap'' is just one example of a law 
enforcement ``sweep''--coordinated, simultaneous law enforcement 
actions with partners--that the FTC uses to leverage resources to 
maximize effects. Another example of a recent sweep is ``Operation 
Main Street,'' an initiative launched during June 2018 to stop small 
business scams. The FTC, jointly with the offices of eight state 
Attorneys General, announced 24 actions targeting fraud aimed at 
small businesses, as well as new education materials to help small 
businesses identify and avoid potential scams. FTC Press Release, 
FTC, BBB, and Law Enforcement Partners Announce Results of Operation 
Main Street: Stopping Small Business Scams Law Enforcement and 
Education Initiative (June 18, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/06/ftc-bbb-law-enforcement-partners-announce-results-operation-main.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Emerging Frauds: The FTC strives to stay ahead of scammers 
who are always on the lookout for new ways to market old schemes. For 
example, there has been an increase in deceptive money-making frauds 
involving cryptocurrencies--digital assets that use cryptography to 
secure or verify transactions. The Commission has worked to educate 
consumers about cryptocurrencies and hold fraudsters accountable. In 
March, the FTC halted the operations of Bitcoin Funding Team, which 
allegedly falsely promised that participants could earn large returns 
by enrolling in money-making schemes and paying with cryptocurrency.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FTC v. Thomas Dluca, et al. (Bitcoin Funding Team) No. 0:18-
cv-60379-KMM (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/172-3107/federal-trade-commission-v-thomas-dluca-et-al-bitcoin-funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Illegal Robocalls: Unlawful robocalls remain a significant 
consumer protection problem because they repeatedly disturb consumers' 
privacy and frequently use fraud and deception to pitch goods and 
services, leading to significant economic harm. In FY 2017, the FTC 
received more than 4.5 million robocall complaints.\9\ The FTC is using 
every tool at its disposal to fight these illegal calls.\10\ Because 
part of the increase in robocalls is attributable to relatively recent 
technological developments, the FTC has taken steps to spur the 
marketplace to develop technological solutions. For instance, the FTC 
led four public challenges to incentivize innovators to help tackle the 
unlawful robocalls that plague consumers.\11\ The FTC's challenges 
contributed to a shift in the development and availability of 
technological solutions in this area, particularly call-blocking and 
call-filtering products.\12\ In addition, the FTC regularly works with 
its state, federal, and international partners to combat illegal 
robocalls, including co-hosting a Joint Policy Forum on Illegal 
Robocalls with the Federal Communications Commission, as well as a 
public expo featuring new technologies, devices, and applications to 
minimize or eliminate the number of illegal robocalls consumers 
receive.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Total unwanted-call complaints for FY 2017, including both 
robocall complaints and complaints about live calls from consumers 
whose phone numbers are registered on the Do Not Call Registry, 
exceeded seven million. See Do Not Call Registry Data Book 2017: 
Complaint Figures for FY 2017, available at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-2017.
    \10\ See FTC Robocall Initiatives, available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0025-robocalls.
    \11\ The first challenge, announced in 2012, called upon the 
public to develop a consumer-facing solution to block illegal 
robocalls. One of the winners, ``NomoRobo,'' was on the market 
within six months after the FTC selected it as a winner. NomoRobo, 
which reports blocking over 600 million calls, is being offered 
directly to consumers by a number of telecommunications providers 
and is available as an app on iPhones.
    \12\ Consumers can access information about potential solutions 
available to them at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/how-stop-unwanted-calls.
    \13\ FTC Press Release, FTC and FCC to Host Joint Policy Forum 
on Illegal Robocalls (Mar. 22, 2018), available at www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/03/ftc-fcc-host-joint-policy-forum-illegal-robocalls; FTC Press Release, FTC and FCC Seek Exhibitors 
for an Expo Featuring Technologies to Block Illegal Robocalls (Mar. 
7, 2018), available at www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/03/ftc-fcc-seek-exhibitors-expo-featuring-technologies-block-illegal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Competition Enforcement. During the 2017 calendar year, the 
agency filed 10 competition cases in federal or administrative courts 
and took action in 25 other cases to protect consumers from 
anticompetitive mergers or business conduct.\14\ The FTC enforces U.S. 
antitrust law in many sectors that directly affect consumers and their 
pocketbooks, such as health care, consumer products and services, 
technology, manufacturing, and energy. The Commission shares federal 
antitrust enforcement responsibilities with the Antitrust Division of 
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Press Release, Acting FTC Chairman Ohlhausen (see footnote 
4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the FTC's principal responsibilities is to prevent mergers 
that may substantially lessen competition. Under the Hart-Scott-

[[Page 57976]]

Rodino Act (HSR), parties to certain large mergers and acquisitions 
must file premerger notifications with both the FTC and the DOJ to 
allow for government review. Over the past five fiscal years, the 
number of HSR premerger filings has increased more than 50 percent, 
bringing filings in the past fiscal year to the average over the past 
20 years.\15\ The vast majority of reported transactions do not raise 
competitive concerns, and the agencies clear those transactions 
expeditiously. But, when the evidence gives the Commission reason to 
believe that a proposed merger would substantially lessen competition, 
the Commission has intervened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In FY 2017, the agencies received notice of 2,052 
transactions, compared with 1,326 in FY 2013 and 2,201 in FY 2007. 
For historical information about HSR filings and U.S. merger 
enforcement, see the joint FTC/DOJ Hart-Scott-Rodino annual reports, 
available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/reports/policy-reports/annual-competition-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the FTC challenged a proposed $285 million acquisition 
by J.M. Smucker Co. of Conagra Brands, Inc.'s Wesson cooking oil brand 
due to concerns that the transaction would illegally reduce competition 
in the United States for canola and vegetable oils. Smucker currently 
owns the Crisco brand, and by acquiring the Wesson brand, it would 
control at least 70 percent of the market for branded canola and 
vegetable oils sold to grocery stores and other retailers. Once 
challenged, the parties abandoned the transaction.\16\ The FTC has also 
successfully negotiated merger settlements requiring divestitures in a 
variety of industries, including pharmaceuticals, agricultural 
chemicals, animal vaccines, and others. Walgreens, for example, 
substantially restructured its proposed acquisition of Rite Aid after 
the Commission raised concerns about the original transaction during an 
extensive review.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FTC Press Release, FTC Challenges Proposed Acquisition of 
Conagra's Wesson Cooking Oil Brand by Crisco owner, J.M. Smucker Co. 
(Mar. 5, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/03/ftc-challengesproposed-acquisition-conagras-wesson-cooking-oil.
    \17\ See Statement of Acting Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen in 
Walgreens Boots Alliance/Rite Aid (Sept. 19, 2017), available at 
https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2017/09/statement-acting-chairman-maureen-k-ohlhausenwalgreens-boots-alliancerite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The courts continue to validate the Commission's competition work. 
In FTC and State of North Dakota v. Sanford Health, the U.S. District 
Court in North Dakota granted the request of the FTC and the Attorney 
General's Office of North Dakota for a preliminary injunction in the 
proposed merger of Sanford Health and Mid Dakota Clinic in the 
Bismarck-Mandan region of North Dakota.\18\ Sanford Health and Mid 
Dakota have appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ United States District Court Order Granting Plaintiffs' 
Motion For A Preliminary Injunction, FTC v. Sanford Health, et al., 
No. 1:17-cv-00133 (W.D. N.D. Dec. 14, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/171-0019/sanford-health-ftc-state-north-dakota-v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FTC v. AbbVie, the district court ruled that AbbVie used sham 
litigation to illegally maintain its monopoly over the testosterone 
replacement drug Androgel, and ordered $448 million in monetary relief 
to consumers who were overcharged for Androgel as a result of AbbVie's 
conduct.\19\ This court order represents the largest monetary award 
ever in a litigated FTC antitrust case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ United States District Court Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law, FTC v. AbbVie, No. 2:14-cv-5151 (E.D. Pa. June 
29, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/121-0028/abbvie-inc-et-al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FTC v. Wilhelmsen, the U.S. District Court granted the FTC's 
request for a preliminary injunction in the proposed merger of 
Wilhelmsen Maritime Services and Drew Marine Group.\20\ Wilhelmsen 
subsequently announced that it will abandon the proposed 
transaction.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FTC Press Release, Statement by FTC Bureau of Competition 
Acting Deputy Director Haidee L. Schwartz on the U.S. District 
Court's Grant of a Preliminary Injunction and Announcement from 
Wilhelmsen Maritime Services that It will Abandon Acquisition of 
Drew Marine Group (July 26, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/07/statement-ftc-bureau-competition-acting-deputy-director-haidee-l.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Regulatory Reform-Related Initiatives

    In addition to consumer protection and competition enforcement 
matters, the agency is continuing its efforts in reforming regulations 
and increasing agency transparency. For example, in February, the 
Commission announced a revised regulatory review schedule for 2018.\22\ 
To ensure that agency rules and industry guides stay relevant and are 
not overly burdensome, the FTC reviews them on a 10-year schedule. The 
review schedule is published each year, with adjustments in response to 
public input, changes in the marketplace, and resource demands. For 
2018, the Commission has already initiated or intends to initiate 
reviews of, and solicit public comments on, the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ FTC Press Release, FTC Announces Regulatory Review Schedule 
(Feb. 14, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/02/ftc-announces-regulatory-review-schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guides for the Nursery Industry, 16 CFR part 18;
    Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil, 16 CFR 
part 311;
    Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising, 16 
CFR part 436; and
    Identity Theft Rules, 16 CFR part 681.
    In addition, the FTC continues to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
Rules (or HSR Rules), including by clarifying Antitrust Improvements 
Act Notification and Report Form for Certain Mergers and Acquisitions 
(HSR Form) and simplifying notification procedures.\23\ On July 16, 
2018, the Commission issued a final rule clarifying certain HSR Form 
instructions and allowing for the notification of early terminations 
and second requests by email.\24\ The effective date of the rule change 
is August 15, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 16 CFR 801-803.
    \24\ 83 FR 32768 (July. 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further streamlining will occur as the FTC continues its regular, 
systematic review of all rules and guides, assessing their costs and 
benefits to consumers and businesses. In addition, the agency continues 
to examine ways in which it can streamline its investigations to reduce 
the burden on businesses and the Commission alike. For example, in 
response to criticisms regarding the length of time it takes to resolve 
complex merger cases, the FTC is developing better mechanisms to track 
the timing of milestone events throughout a merger investigation. The 
goal is to improve understanding of the factors that determine the 
length of a merger investigation and, in particular, to highlight 
whether those factors are within the control of the FTC, the merging 
parties, or others. Consistent with confidentiality obligations, the 
FTC intends to make public as much of this data as possible, to 
encourage additional dialogue among interested stakeholders regarding 
ways to streamline the merger review process.
    The agency also has focused its advocacy efforts to reduce 
regulatory burdens and their associated costs at the state and federal 
level. A few of these efforts are described below.
    (1) Licensing Restrictions. The agency's Economic Liberty Task 
Force (Task Force) continues to focus on ways to reduce unnecessary 
burdens imposed by occupational licensing requirements. Licensing 
restrictions--typically embodied in state statutory law, regulations, 
and administration--define an occupation's metes and bounds, or ``scope 
of practice,'' and establish conditions for entry into an occupation. 
For some professions, licensing is necessary to protect the public 
against legitimate health and safety concerns. However, licensing 
requirements also prevent competition by imposing costs

[[Page 57977]]

on anyone who wants to enter a licensed profession or continue 
competing in that market. In many cases, the services for which a 
license is required do not require the skill or knowledge reflected in 
the license and such services could be practiced safely and effectively 
by professionals who do not possess the required license.
    State-by-state licensing rules can be especially costly to workers 
who seek to move to another state or to offer services across state 
lines. These costs not only impact workers, but may also harm consumers 
by reducing availability and quality, and increasing the price, of 
services and goods offered by licensed professionals. Restrictions on 
license portability across state lines are particularly burdensome for 
the families of military service members who move frequently, as 
military spouses often work in licensed occupations.
    On November 7, 2017, the Task Force hosted a roundtable to examine 
empirical evidence on the effects of state occupational licensure.\25\ 
On December 14, 2017, the same Task Force hosted four individuals, 
including three military spouses, for a ``fireside chat'' with then-
Acting Chairman Ohlhausen.\26\ This event provided a voice to the 
millions of American workers and consumers--especially military 
families--whose lives and livelihoods are impacted by unnecessary 
occupational licensing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ FTC Press Release, The Effects of Occupational Licensure on 
Competition, Consumers, and the Workforce: Empirical Research and 
Results (Nov. 7, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2017/11/effects-occupational-licensure-competition-consumers-workforce.
    \26\ FTC Press Release, Voices for Liberty Fireside Chat (Dec. 
14, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy/economic-liberty/voices-liberty-fireside-chat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Telehealth. Commission staff continued their efforts to promote 
competition among health care providers by removing state-based 
regulatory barriers to the use of telehealth in appropriate 
circumstances. In November 2017, in response to a call for public 
comments, FTC staff submitted a comment to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) in support of its proposed rule to clarify that VA health 
care practitioners may provide telehealth services to beneficiaries 
notwithstanding any contrary state licensing laws, rules, or 
requirements.\27\ The rule would ensure that VA telehealth 
practitioners may provide services to or from non-federal sites, such 
as a home, regardless of whether the practitioner is licensed in the 
state where the patient is located. The FTC staff comment noted that 
the proposed rule would likely increase access to telehealth services, 
increase the supply of telehealth providers, increase the range of 
choices available to patients, improve health care outcomes, and reduce 
the VA's health care costs, thereby benefiting veterans, especially 
those in underserved areas or who are unable to travel. FTC staff also 
indicated that the VA's rulemaking would send an important signal to 
non-VA health care providers, state legislatures, employers, patients, 
and others regarding the tremendous potential of telehealth to promote 
competition and improve access to care. The VA issued the rule on May 
11, 2018, with an effective date of June 11, 2018.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ FTC Press Release, FTC Staff Comment Supports VA Telehealth 
Rule that Will Increase Access to Care, Promote Competition, and 
Benefit Veterans (Nov. 2, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/11/ftc-staff-comment-supports-va-telehealth-rule-will-increase; see also FTC Staff Comment Before the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Regarding Its Proposed Telehealth 
Rule (Nov. 1, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-staff-comment-department-veterans-affairs-regarding-its-proposed-telehealth-rule/v180001vatelehealth.pdf.
    \28\ 83 FR 21897 (May 11, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Ongoing Focus Areas

    As discussed below, the Commission is also focused on fostering 
innovation in competition and consumer protection; consumer privacy; 
small business assistance and advice on data security; and protecting 
military consumers.
    (1) Fostering Innovation, Competition, and Consumer Protection. On 
June 20, 2018, Chairman Joseph Simons announced that the Commission 
would hold a series of public hearings during the fall and winter of 
2018-19 examining whether broad-based changes in the economy, evolving 
business practices, new technologies, or international developments 
might require adjustments to competition and consumer protection law, 
enforcement priorities, and policy.\29\ These Hearings on Competition 
and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century will be similar in form and 
structure to the Global Competition and Innovation Hearings undertaken 
in 1995 during the Chairmanship of Robert Pitofsky. The Pitofsky 
Hearings were the first major step in establishing the FTC as a key 
modern center for competition policy research and development and 
sought to articulate recommendations that would effectively ensure the 
competitiveness of U.S. markets without imposing unnecessary costs on 
private parties or governmental processes. The hearings began in 
September 2018 and are expected to continue through January 2019, and 
will consist of 15 to 20 public sessions. All hearings will be webcast, 
transcribed, and placed on the public record. The Commission will 
invite public comment in stages throughout the term of the hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See FTC Press Release, FTC Announces Hearings on 
Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century (June 20, 
2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/06/ftc-announces-hearings-competition-consumer-protection-21st.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Consumer Privacy. As the nation's top enforcer on the consumer 
privacy beat, the FTC works to protect consumers' privacy so that they 
can take advantage of the benefits of a dynamic and ever-changing 
digital marketplace. The FTC achieves that goal through civil law 
enforcement, policy initiatives, and consumer and business education.
    For example, the FTC's 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. For 
example, electronic toy manufacturer VTech paid $650,000 to settle FTC 
charges that the company violated the Children's Online Privacy 
Protection Act by collecting personal information from children without 
providing direct notice and obtaining their parent's consent, and 
failing to take reasonable steps to secure the data it collected.\30\ 
Vizio, one of the world's largest manufacturers and sellers of 
internet-connected smart televisions, agreed to pay $2.2 million to 
settle charges that it installed software on its televisions to collect 
the viewing data of 11 million consumers without their knowledge or 
consent.\31\ Ongoing work includes an investigation of Facebook's 
privacy practices.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Press Release, Electronic Toy Maker VTech Settles FTC 
Allegations That it Violated Children's Privacy Law and the FTC Act 
(Jan. 8, 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/01/electronic-toy-maker-vtech-settles-ftc-allegations-it-violated.
    \31\ VIZIO, INC. and VIZIO Inscape Services, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-
00758 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/162-3024/vizio-inc-vizio-inscape-services-llc.
    \32\ Statement by the Acting Director of FTC's Bureau of 
Consumer Protection Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook 
Privacy Practices (Mar. 26, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/03/statement-acting-director-ftcs-bureau-consumer-protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC held its third annual PrivacyCon, a conference examining 
cutting-edge research and trends in protecting consumer privacy and 
security, on February 28, 2018. The 2018 event focused on the economics 
of privacy, including how to weigh the costs and benefits of security-
by-design

[[Page 57978]]

techniques and privacy-protective technologies and behaviors.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ FTC Workshop, PrivacyCon 2018 (Feb. 28, 2018), available at 
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2018/02/privacycon-2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Data Security. The FTC continues to explore additional ways to 
provide practical guidance on data security. Since 2002, the FTC has 
brought more than 60 cases alleging that companies failed to have 
reasonable data security and placed consumers' data at risk. The FTC's 
law enforcement experience informs the agency's educational materials 
for businesses. For example, the FTC's 2015 Start with Security guide 
distills the lessons learned from FTC cases down to ten fundamental 
concepts. During 2017's Stick with Security initiative, agency staff 
published a periodic Business Blog post that focused on each of the ten 
Start with Security principles, using a series of hypotheticals to 
provide detailed guidance on steps companies can take to safeguard 
sensitive information.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Stick with Security: A Business Blog Series (October 
2017), https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/stick-security-business-blog-series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Small Businesses. There are more than 30 million small 
businesses nationwide, employing nearly 59 million people, according to 
the Small Business Administration (SBA). The Commission maintains a 
small business website (www.ftc.gov/SmallBusiness) with information to 
help small business owners avoid scams and protect their systems and 
customer data from threats.\35\ In April 2018, the FTC launched a 
national education campaign to help small businesses strengthen their 
cyber defenses and protect sensitive data that they store.\36\ The FTC 
also released business guidance to help multi-level marketers 
understand and comply with the law.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ For example, see Scams and Your Small Business: A Guide for 
Business (June 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/scams-your-small-business-guide-business.
    \36\ See Engage, Connect, Protect The FTC's Projects and Plans 
to Foster Small Business Cybersecurity Staff Perspective (April 
2018), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/engage-connect-protect-ftcs-projects-plans-foster-small-business-cybersecurity-federal-trade/ecp_staffperspective_2.pdf.
    \37\ See Business Guidance Concerning Multi-Level Marketing 
(Jan. 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/business-guidance-concerning-multi-level-marketing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Military Consumers. The agency also has expanded its focus on 
military consumers. This includes a new militaryconsumer.gov website 
and a series of Military Financial Consumer conferences. The new 
website provides advice and assistance on a number of topics, including 
financial advice and alerts on numerous scams directed at military 
consumers and their families. A recent example is an alert about 
scammers targeting the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.\38\ In 
addition, a new Staff Perspective by the FTC's Bureau of Consumer 
Protection examined financial issues that can affect military 
consumers, including service members, veterans, and their families, 
when they are purchasing and financing a car, dealing with debt 
collectors, or making credit decisions.\39\ The Staff Perspective also 
discusses the rights and remedies that are available to military 
consumers in making financial decisions, and emphasizes how financial 
education early and often, adapted to the military life cycle, is 
crucial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See https://www.militaryconsumer.gov/scam-alerts/scammers-target-sept-11th-victim-compensation-fund.
    \39\ See A Closer Look At the Military Consumer Financial 
Workshop: The Federal Trade Commission Staff Perspective (Feb. 
2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/closer-look-military-consumer-financial-workshop-federal-trade-commission-staff-perspective/military_consumer_workshop_-_staff_perspective_2-2-18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) International Consumer Protection and Competition. Enforcement 
cooperation is the top priority of the FTC's international consumer 
protection program. During fiscal year 2017, the FTC cooperated in 51 
investigations, cases, and enforcement projects with foreign consumer, 
privacy, and criminal enforcement agencies as well as global agency 
enforcement networks. The FTC used its authority under the U.S. SAFE 
WEB Act (SAFE WEB) to share information or provide investigative 
assistance to foreign authorities in some of these matters.\40\ Passed 
in 2006, and renewed in 2012, SAFE WEB has allowed the FTC to share 
evidence and provide investigative assistance to foreign authorities in 
a wide variety of cases, and has led to reciprocal assistance.\41\ SAFE 
WEB has also underpinned the FTC's ability to participate in cross-
border cooperation memoranda of understanding and other arrangements, 
including the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (Privacy Shield), which 
helps enable billions of transatlantic data flows.\42\ Critically, SAFE 
WEB also expressly confirms the FTC's authority to challenge practices 
occurring in other countries that harm U.S. consumers, a common fraud 
scenario, as well as to challenge U.S. business practices that harm 
foreign consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With 
Enforcers beyond Borders Act [U.S. SAFE WEB Act], Public Law 109-
455, 120 Stat. 3372, extended by Public Law 112-203, 126 Stat. 1484, 
codified at 15 U.S.C., sections 41 et seq.
    \41\ The FTC has responded to more than 125 SAFE WEB Act 
information sharing requests from 30 foreign enforcement agencies. 
The FTC has issued more than 110 civil investigative demands in more 
than 50 civil and criminal investigations on behalf of foreign 
agencies. In cases relying on SAFE WEB, the FTC has collected 
millions of dollars in restitution for injured domestic and foreign 
consumers. See Press Release, FTC Testifies before House Energy and 
Commerce Subcommittee about Agency's Work to Protect Consumers, 
Promote Competition, and Maximize Resources (July 18, 2018), 
available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/07/ftc-testifies-house-energy-commerce-subcommittee-about-agencys.
    \42\ FTC Privacy Shield, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/privacy-shield. Indeed, the 
FTC's SAFE WEB powers provide for stronger cooperation with European 
data protection authorities on investigations and enforcement 
against possible Privacy Shield violations, a point cited in the 
European Commission's Privacy Shield adequacy decision. See 
Commission Implementing Decision No. 2016/1250 (on the adequacy of 
the protection provided by the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield), 2016 O.J. 
L207/1 at ] 51, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L:2016:207:FULL&from=EN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC's cross-border enforcement cooperation covers the full 
range of FTC investigations and cases. A recent example is a sweep of 
elder fraud cases involving assistance from the International Mass-
Marketing Fraud Working Group (IMMFWG), which the FTC co-chairs along 
with the Department of Justice and UK law enforcement.\43\ As part of 
that sweep, the FTC worked directly with UK and Canadian authorities to 
halt Next-Gen Inc., a sweepstakes scam targeting senior citizens in the 
United States, Canada, France, Germany, and the UK \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ DOJ Press Release, Justice Department Coordinates 
Nationwide Elder Fraud Sweep of More Than 250 Defendants (Feb. 22, 
2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-coordinates-nationwide-elder-fraud-sweep-more-250-defendants. The IMMFWG is a network of civil and criminal law 
enforcement agencies from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Europol, the 
Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom and the 
United States.
    \44\ FTC Press Release, FTC Challenges Schemes That Target or 
Affect Senior Citizens (Feb. 22, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/02/ftc-challenges-schemes-target-or-affect-senior-citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A key focus of the FTC's international privacy efforts is support 
for global interoperability of data privacy regimes. The FTC works with 
the U.S. Department of Commerce on three key cross-border data transfer 
programs for the commercial sector: The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, the 
Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
(``APEC'') Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CPBR) System. The Privacy Shield 
programs provide legal mechanisms for companies to transfer personal 
data from the EU and Switzerland to the United States with strong 
privacy protections. The APEC CBPR system is a voluntary, enforceable

[[Page 57979]]

code of conduct protecting personal information transferred among the 
United States and other APEC economies. The FTC enforces companies' 
privacy promises in these programs, bringing cases as violations of 
Section 5 of the FTC Act.\45\ The FTC also works closely with agencies 
developing and implementing new privacy and data security laws in Latin 
America and Asia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., ReadyTech Corp., Matter No. 1823100 (July 2, 
2018), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/182-3100/readytech-corporation-matter; Md7, LLC, No. C-4629 (Nov. 29, 2017), 
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/172-3172/md7-llc; 
Tru Communication, Inc., No. C-4628 (Nov. 29, 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/172-3171/tru-communication-inc; Decusoft, LLC, No. C-4630 (Nov. 29, 2017), 
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/172-3173/decusoft-llc; Sentinel Labs, Inc., No. C-4608 (Apr. 14, 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/162-3250/sentinel-labs-inc; Vir2us, Inc., No. C-4609 (Apr. 14, 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/162-3248/vir2us-inc; SpyChatter, Inc., 
No. C-4614 (Apr. 14, 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/162-3251/spychatter-inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC's international competition program supports the Bureau of 
Competition in the international aspects of their investigations and 
enforcement, cooperates with competition agencies around the world on 
enforcement and policy, and promotes convergence of international 
antitrust policies toward best practice.
    The FTC plays a lead role in the International Competition Network 
(ICN), which includes almost every competition agency in the world and 
provides a leading forum for international cooperation and convergence. 
The FTC's activities in the ICN include: Serving on the Steering Group; 
co-chairing the Merger Working Group where it leads projects to develop 
recommended practices for merger notification and analysis, and 
practical guidance on investigative techniques; leading the ICN's work 
on procedural fairness in antitrust investigations; leading the ICN 
Training on Demand project, which is creating a comprehensive 
curriculum of video training materials on competition law and practice; 
and co-chairing the Advocacy and Implementation Network. At the ICN's 
annual conference in March 2018, the ICN adopted the Merger Working 
Group's revised Recommended Practices on international enforcement 
cooperation, timing of notification, and review periods. The working 
group also presented results of its agency survey on vertical merger 
analysis and related economic assessment.
    The FTC continues to help lead the work of the Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Competition Committee, 
including in its current strategic projects on procedural fairness, the 
digital economy, and the application of competition laws to 
intellectual property rights. The agency also participates actively in 
the competition components of the United Nations Conference on Trade 
and Development (UNCTAD) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
(APEC).
    Within the U.S. government, the FTC works closely with colleagues 
in other agencies in intergovernmental fora that deal with competition 
matters, including challenges that arise from the enforcement of 
foreign competition laws. The FTC is also involved in issues at the 
intersection of trade and competition policy, including as part of the 
U.S. delegation that negotiates competition chapters of trade 
agreements.
    (7) Self-Regulatory and Compliance Initiatives with Industry. The 
Commission continues to engage industry in compliance partnerships in 
the funeral and franchise industries, among others. For example, the 
Commission's Funeral Rule Offender Program, conducted in partnership 
with the National Funeral Directors Association, and is designed to 
educate funeral home operators found in violation of the requirements 
of the Funeral Rule so that they can meet the rule's disclosure 
requirements. Five hundred and thirty-two funeral homes have 
participated in the program since its inception in 1996.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 16 CFR 453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission established the Franchise Rule 
Alternative Law Enforcement Program in partnership with the 
International Franchise Association (IFA), a nonprofit organization 
that represents both franchisors and franchisees. This program assists 
franchisors found to have a minor or technical violation of the 
Franchise Rule in complying with the rule.\47\ 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 1998, 21 companies have agreed to participate in the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 16 CFR 436. Violations involving fraud or other FTC Act 
violations are not candidates for referral to the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (8) Second Chance and Leniency Policies. The Commission complements 
its compliance assistance efforts by considering the particular 
circumstance when enforcing business obligations. For example, the 
Commission has a small business leniency policy statement that analyzes 
various factors that may result in reduction or waiver of 
penalties.\48\ As such cases arise; the Commission considers these 
leniency factors whenever a civil penalty may be assessed against a 
small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 62 FR 16809 (Apr. 8, 1997) (issuing policy), 62 FR 
46363 (Sept. 2, 1997) (responding to comment received).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission continued its ``second chance'' policy for certain 
minor and inadvertent violations of the textile and wool labeling 
rules, which can apply to small businesses. The Textile Corporate 
Leniency Policy helps increase overall compliance with the rules while 
minimizing the burden on business of correcting inadvertent labeling 
errors that are not likely to injure consumers. Since the Policy was 
announced (2002), at least 242 companies have been granted ``leniency'' 
for self-reported minor violations of the FTC textile regulations.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Measures
    In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules 
and guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned 
after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 
and complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996. The Commission's 10-year program also is consistent with 
section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, which directs executive branch 
agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically all of their 
significant existing regulations.\49\ Under the Commission's program, 
rules are reviewed on a 10-year schedule that results in more frequent 
reviews than are generally required by Section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This program is also broader than the review 
contemplated under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in that it provides 
the Commission with an ongoing systematic approach for seeking 
information about the costs and benefits of its rules and guides and 
whether there are changes that could minimize any adverse economic 
effects, not just a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial 
number of small entities.'' \50\ In each rule review, the Commission 
requests public comments on, among other things, the economic impact 
and benefits of the rule; possible conflict between the rule and state, 
local, or other federal laws or regulations; and the effect on the rule 
of any

[[Page 57980]]

technological, economic, or other industry changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
    \50\ 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. Pursuant to this program, the Commission has 
rescinded 37 rules and guides promulgated under the FTC's general 
authority and updated dozens of others since the early 1990s.
    The FTC continues to take a fresh look at its long-standing 
regulatory review process. On February 20, 2018, the Commission issued 
a revised 10-year review schedule.\51\ The Commission is currently 
reviewing 15 of the 65 rules and guides within its jurisdiction. The 
FTC maintains a web page at https://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 83 FR 7120 (Feb. 20, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2018, the Commission initiated or will initiate reviews of four 
of its rules or guides: (1) Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for 
Recycled Oil, 16 CFR 311; (2) Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions 
Concerning Franchising, 16 CFR 436; (3) Identity Theft Rules, 16 CFR 
681; and (4) The Nursery Guides, 16 CFR 18.

Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews

    The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and 
guides, which are discussed below.
(a) Rules
    CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 CFR 316. The Controlling the Assault of Non-
Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM) regulates 
the transmission of all commercial electronic mail (email) messages. 
The FTC issued the CAN-SPAM Rule to implement the Act, as authorized by 
the statute. As part of its ongoing systematic review of its rules and 
guides, the Commission initiated a periodic review of the CAN-SPAM Rule 
on June 28, 2017.\52\ The public comment period closed on August 31, 
2017. Commission staff anticipates sending a recommendation to the 
Commission by December 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 82 FR 29254 (June 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\53\ 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.'' \54\ On March 28, 2014, the 
Commission hosted a public roundtable in Washington, DC, that analyzed 
proposed changes to the Rule. Staff anticipates Commission action by 
December 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 76 FR 41148 (July 13, 2011).
    \54\ 77 FR 58338 (Sept. 20, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR 315. As part of the systematic rule 
review process, on September 3, 2015, the Commission issued a Federal 
Register notice seeking public comments about the Contact Lens 
Rule.\55\ The comment period closed on October 26, 2015. The Contact 
Lens Rule requires contact lens prescribers to provide prescriptions to 
their patients upon the completion of a contact lens fitting, and to 
verify contact lens prescriptions for contact lens sellers authorized 
by consumers to seek such verification. Sellers may provide contact 
lenses only in accordance with a valid prescription that is directly 
presented to the seller or verified with the prescriber. After 
Commission staff completed review of the 660 comments received from 
consumers, eye care professionals, industry members, trade 
associations, and consumer advocacy groups, the Commission published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking on December 7, 2016, seeking comment on 
its proposal to amend the Rule to require contact lens prescribers to 
obtain a signed acknowledgement after releasing a contact lens 
prescription to a patient, and to maintain it for at least three years. 
In addition, to conform language of the Rule to the language of the 
Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act, the Commission sought comment 
on a proposal to amend section 315.5(e) of the Rule to remove the words 
``private label.'' The comment period closed on January 30, 2017, and 
staff reviewed more than 4,000 comments that were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 80 FR 53272 (Sept. 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 8, 2017, the Commission announced that it would be 
holding a public workshop relating to the NPRM and other issues 
relating to competition in the marketplace and consumer access to 
contact lenses.\56\ The workshop was held on March 7, 2018, and the 
deadline for submitting comments on the issues discussed at the 
workshop was April 6, 2018. Staff is reviewing more than 3,000 comments 
received and plans to submit a recommendation to the Commission by 
early 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 82 FR 57889 (Dec. 8, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. The Energy Labeling Rule is 
officially known as the Rule concerning Energy and Water Use Labeling 
for Consumer Products Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 
Staff anticipates that the Commission will issue an NPRM by Spring 
2019.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Final Actions below for information about a separate 
completed rulemaking proceeding for the Energy Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eyeglass Rule, 16 CFR 456. As part of the systematic rule review 
process, on September 3, 2015, the Commission issued a Federal Register 
notice seeking public comments about the Eyeglass Rule (or Trade 
Regulation Rule on Ophthalmic Practice Rules).\58\ The comment period 
closed on October 26, 2015. Commission staff has completed the review 
of 831 comments on the Eyeglass Rule and anticipates sending a 
recommendation for further Commission action by the fall of 2019. The 
Eyeglass Rule requires that an optometrist or ophthalmologist give the 
patient, at no extra cost, a copy of the eyeglass prescription 
immediately after the examination is completed. The Rule also prohibits 
optometrists and ophthalmologists from conditioning the availability of 
an eye examination, as defined by the Rule, on a requirement that the 
patient agree to purchase ophthalmic goods from the optometrist or 
ophthalmologist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 80 FR 53274 (Sept. 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436. By December 2018, the Commission plans 
to initiate periodic review of the

[[Page 57981]]

Franchise Rule (officially titled, Disclosure Requirements and 
Prohibitions Concerning Franchising). The Rule gives prospective 
purchasers of franchises the material information they need in order to 
weigh the risks and benefits of such an investment. The Rule requires 
franchisors to provide all potential franchisees with a disclosure 
document containing 23 specific items of information about the offered 
franchise, its officers, and other franchisees. Required disclosure 
topics include, for example: The franchise's litigation history, past 
and current franchisees and their contact information, any exclusive 
territory that comes with the franchise, assistance the franchisor 
provides franchisees, and the cost of purchasing and starting up a 
franchise.
    Funeral Rule, 16 CFR 453. The Commission plans to initiate periodic 
review of the Funeral Industry Practices Rule (Funeral Rule) during 
2019. The Rule, which became effective in 1984, requires sellers of 
funeral goods and services to give price lists to consumers who visit a 
funeral home and to disclose price and other information to callers who 
request it over the telephone. The Rule enables consumers to select and 
purchase only the goods and services they want, and requires funeral 
providers to seek authority before performing some services such as 
embalming. The Rule also requires funeral providers to make disclosures 
regarding any required purchases and prohibits misrepresentations 
regarding requirements and other aspects of funeral goods and services.
    Holder in Due Course Rule, 16 CFR 433. On December 1, 2015, the 
Commission initiated a periodic review of the Preservation of 
Consumers' Claims and Defenses Rule (Holder in Due Course Rule).\59\ 
The comment period closed on February 12, 2016. Staff is reviewing the 
comments and anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission by 
December 2018. The Holder in Due Course Rule requires sellers to 
include language in consumer credit contracts that preserves consumers' 
claims and defenses against the seller. This Rule eliminated the 
``holder in due course'' doctrine as a legal defense for separating a 
consumer's obligation to pay from the seller's duty to perform by 
requiring that consumer credit and loan contracts contain one of two 
clauses to preserve the buyer's right to assert sales-related claims 
and defenses against any ``holder'' of the contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 80 FR 75018 (Dec. 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Identity Theft Rules, 16 CFR 681. By December 2018, the Commission 
expects to initiate periodic review of the Identity Theft Rules, which 
include the Red Flags Rule and the Card Issuer Rule. The Red Flags Rule 
requires financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement 
a written identity theft prevention program (a Red Flags Program). By 
identifying red flags for identity theft in advance, businesses can be 
better equipped to spot suspicious patterns that may arise and take 
steps to prevent potential problems from escalating into a costly 
episode of identity theft. The Card Issuer Rule requires credit and 
debit card issuers to implement reasonable policies and procedures to 
assess the validity of a change of address if they receive notification 
of a change of address for a consumer's debit or credit card account 
and, within a short period of time afterwards, also receive a request 
for an additional or replacement card for the same account.
    Military Credit Monitoring Rule, to be promulgated at 16 CFR 609. 
The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, 
Public Law 115-174, requires the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate 
the Free Credit Monitoring for Active Duty Military Rule by May 25, 
2019. The Rule to be promulgated will require the nationwide consumer 
reporting agencies to provide a free electronic credit monitoring 
service that, at a minimum, notifies a consumer of material additions 
or modifications to the file of the consumer at the consumer reporting 
agency to any consumer who provides to the consumer reporting agency 
(A) appropriate proof that the consumer is an active duty military 
consumer; and (B) contact information of the consumer. The Act requires 
the implementing rule to define: Electronic credit monitoring service, 
material additions or modifications to the file of the consumer, and to 
determine what constitutes appropriate proof that a consumer is active 
duty military. The Commission plans to issue a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking during October 2018. The public comment period will close 60 
days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register. The 
Commission plans to issue the final rule by or before May 25, 2019, as 
required by the Act.
    Premerger Notification Rules and Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 
801-803. The HSR Rules and the Antitrust Improvements Act Notification 
and Report Form (HSR Form) were adopted pursuant to section 7(A) of the 
Clayton Act, which requires firms of a certain size contemplating 
mergers, acquisitions, or other transactions of a specified size to 
file notification with the FTC and the DOJ and to wait a designated 
period of time before consummating the transaction. These Rules are 
continually reviewed in order to improve the program's effectiveness 
and to reduce the paperwork burden on the business community.
    Staff anticipates submitting a recommendation to the Commission by 
October 2018 that would propose clarifying the definition of foreign 
issuer in the HSR Rules. The definition in the HSR Rules for U.S. and 
Foreign persons and issuers focuses on three tests: (1) Location of 
incorporation, (2) country whose laws organized under, and (3) 
principal offices. The term ``principal offices'' is not defined in the 
rules and is often a source of confusion for parties. This rulemaking 
would provide a definition.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See (B) Regulatory Reform-related Initiatives above for 
information about the streamlining of paperwork burdens for E-filing 
HSR Forms and a separate completed rulemaking proceeding for the HSR 
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Privacy Rule, 16 CFR 313. The Privacy Rule or Privacy of Consumer 
Financial Information Rule requires, among other things, that certain 
motor vehicle dealers provide an annual disclosure of their privacy 
policies to their customers by hand delivery, mail, electronic 
delivery, or through a website, but only with the consent of the 
consumer. On June 24, 2015, the Commission proposed amending the Rule 
to allow motor vehicle dealers instead to notify their customers that a 
privacy policy is available on their website, under certain 
circumstances.\61\ The proposed amendment would also revise the scope 
and definitions in the Rule in light of the transfer of part of the 
Commission's rulemaking authority to the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act. The comment period closed on August 31, 2015. Since the Commission 
proposed amending the Rule, Congress enacted the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) which included a provision 
amending the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to create a new exception to the 
annual notice requirement. Staff anticipates submitting a 
recommendation to the Commission by November 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 80 FR 36267 (June 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    R-value Rule, 16 CFR 460. On April 6, 2016, the Commission 
initiated a periodic review of the R-value Rule, officially the Trade 
Regulation Rule Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home 
Insulation, as part of its ongoing systematic review of all

[[Page 57982]]

rules and guides.\62\ The comment period was later extended to 
September 6, 2016.\63\ Staff anticipates sending a recommendation to 
the Commission for the next action by October 2018. The R-value Rule is 
designed to assist consumers in evaluating and comparing the thermal 
performance characteristics of competing home insulation products by 
specifically requiring manufacturers of home insulation products to 
provide information about the product's degree of resistance to the 
flow of heat (R-value). The Rule also establishes uniform standards for 
testing, information disclosure, and substantiation of product 
performance claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 81 FR 19936 (Apr. 6, 2016).
    \63\ 81 FR 35661 (June 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safeguards Rule (or Standards for Safeguarding Customer 
Information), 16 CFR 314. On September 7, 2016, the Commission 
initiated a periodic review of the Safeguards Rule as part of its 
ongoing systematic review of all rules and guides.\64\ The comment 
period closed on November 7, 2016, and staff anticipates submitting a 
recommendation to the Commission by November 2018. The FTC's Safeguards 
Rule, as directed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, requires each 
financial institution subject to the FTC's jurisdiction to assess risks 
and develop a written information security program that is appropriate 
to its size and complexity, the nature and scope of its activities, and 
the sensitivity of the customer information at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 81 FR 61632 (Sept. 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR 308. On August 11, 2014, the 
Commission initiated a periodic review of the TSR as set out on the 10-
year review schedule.\65\ The comment period as extended closed on 
November 13, 2014.\66\ Staff anticipates making a recommendation to the 
Commission by December 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 79 FR 46732 (Aug. 11, 2014). See Final Actions below for 
information about a separate completed rulemaking proceeding for the 
Telemarketing Sales Rule.
    \66\ 79 FR 61267 (Oct. 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Guides
    Nursery Guides, 16 CFR 18. On February 22, 2018, the Commission 
initiated periodic review of the Guides for the Nursery Industry.\67\ 
Adopted in 1979 and last reviewed in 2007, the Guides address a number 
of sales practices for outdoor plants, trees, and flowers and prohibit 
deception as to such things as size, grade, age, condition, price, 
origin, or the place where the products were grown. The comment period 
closed on April 20, 2018. On August 30, 2018, the Commission proposed 
to rescind the Guides because they appear to serve little purpose for 
consumers and industry members in today's market.\68\ The comment 
period will close on November 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 83 FR 7643 (Feb. 22, 2018).
    \68\ 83 FR 45582 (Sept. 10, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Leather Guides, 16 CFR 24. During 2019, the Commission plans to 
initiate periodic review of the Leather Guides, formally known as the 
Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products. Adopted in 
1996 and last reviewed in 2007, the Leather Guides address 
misrepresentations regarding the composition and characteristics of 
specific leather and imitation leather products. The Guides apply to 
the manufacture, sale, distribution, marketing, or advertising of 
leather or simulated leather purses, luggage, wallets, footwear, and 
other similar products. Importantly, the Leather Guides state that 
disclosure of non-leather content should be made for material that has 
the appearance of leather but is not leather.

Final Actions

    Since the publication of the 2017 Regulatory Plan, the Commission 
has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to close 
other rulemaking or guide proceedings. These final rules continue to be 
consistent with the President's Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and 
Principles contained in Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 
13771.
    Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. On February 22, 2018, the 
Commission published final rule amendments to the Energy Labeling Rule 
that updated ranges of comparability and unit energy cost figures on 
EnergyGuide labels for dishwashers, furnaces, room air conditioners, 
and pool heaters.\69\ The effective date was May 23, 2018. The 
Commission also set a compliance date of October 1, 2019, for 
EnergyGuide labels on room air conditioner boxes and made several minor 
clarifications and corrections to the Rule.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 83 FR 7593 (Feb. 22, 2018).
    \70\ See Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews (a) Rules for 
information about a separate and ongoing rulemaking under the Energy 
Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Picture Tube Rule, 16 CFR 410. On October 2, 2018, the Commission 
announced the completion of its regulatory review of the Rule on 
Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by 
Television Receiving Sets (Picture Tube Rule). The Commission 
determined that the Rule, which was effective in 1967, is no longer 
necessary to prevent deceptive claims regarding the size of television 
screens and to encourage uniformity and accuracy in their marketing. 
The Commission is therefore repealing the Rule, effective 90 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. As part of the systematic review 
of its rules and guides, the Commission had initiated a periodic review 
of the Rule on June 28, 2017.\71\ Based on comments received and 
prevailing market practices, the Commission published an NPRM on April 
18, 2018, that proposed to repeal the Rule.\72\ While effective, the 
Picture Tube Rule set forth appropriate methods for measuring 
television screens when that measure was included in any advertisement 
or promotional material for the television set. If the measurement of 
the screen size was based on a measurement other than the horizontal 
dimension of the actual viewable picture area, the method of 
measurement had to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed in close 
proximity to the size designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 82 FR 29256 (June 28, 2017).
    \72\ 83 FR 17117 (Apr. 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recycled Oil Rule, 16 CFR 311. On July 24, 2018, the Commission 
announced the completion of the review of the Recycled Oil Rule 
(officially the Rule on Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for 
Recycled Oil) and that the Rule is being retained in its current 
form.\73\ This Rule governs labeling of containers for recycled or 
``re-refined'' oil intended for use as engine oil. The Rule, which 
implemented statutory requirements designed to encourage the use of 
recycled oil, permits manufacturers and other sellers to represent on a 
recycled engine-oil container label that the oil is substantially 
equivalent to new engine oil, as long as the determination of 
equivalency is based on National Institute of Standards and Technology 
test procedures prescribed by the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 83 FR 48213 (Sept. 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Textile Rules, 16 CFR 303. On January 23, 2018, the Commission 
amended the Textile Rules (formally Rules and Regulations under the 
Textile Fiber Products Identification Act) by eliminating an obsolete 
provision requiring that an owner of a registered word trademark 
furnish the agency with a copy of the mark's United States Patent and 
Trademark Office registration before using the mark on labels.\74\ 
Eliminating this requirement is expected to reduce compliance costs 
while increasing firms' flexibility. The final Rules were effective on 
February 22, 2018. The Textile Rules implement

[[Page 57983]]

the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, which requires wearing 
apparel and other covered household textile articles to be marked with 
(1) the generic names and percentages by weight of the constituent 
fibers present in the textile fiber product; (2) the name under which 
the manufacturer or another responsible USA company does business, or 
in lieu thereof, the registered identification number (RN) of such a 
company; and (3) the name of the country where the textile product was 
processed or manufactured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 83 FR 3068 (Jan. 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jewelry Guides, 16 CFR 23. On July 24, 2018, the Commission 
announced it was adopting revised Guides for the Jewelry, Precious 
Metals, and Pewter Industries (Jewelry Guides).\75\ As part of its 
comprehensive review of the Jewelry Guides, the Commission reviewed 
public comments and the transcript of a public roundtable. To help 
marketers avoid deceptive practices, our recommended revisions attempt 
to align the Guides with Section 5 by tying guidance to consumer 
expectations where we have supporting evidence while providing sellers 
greater flexibility. The final Guides include several revisions 
addressing precious metal surface applications. First, for sellers 
choosing to advertise their products' precious metal coatings, the 
final Guides advise how to do so non-deceptively. Second, based on new 
durability testing, the final Guides include revised examples of non-
deceptive markings and descriptions for gold surface applications that 
are reasonably durable. Third, the final Guides advise marketers to 
disclose the purity of coatings made with a gold, silver, or platinum 
alloy. Finally, the final Guides advise marketers to disclose rhodium 
coatings over products advertised as precious metal, such as rhodium-
plated items marketed as ``white gold'' or silver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 83 FR 40665 (Aug. 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

    The actions under consideration inform and protect consumers, while 
minimizing the regulatory burdens on legitimate businesses. The 
Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and benefits of 
proposed regulatory actions and possible alternative actions and to 
seek and consider the broadest practicable array of comment from 
affected consumers, businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the 
Commission's regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly 
promoting the ability of ``private markets to protect or improve the 
health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of 
the American people.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Executive Order 12866, section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

    The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the definition in Executive Order 12866.\77\ 
The Commission also has no proposed rules that would have significant 
international impacts or any international regulatory cooperation 
activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant 
regulations as defined in Executive Order 13609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a regulatory 
action to be ``significant'' if it is likely to result in a rule 
that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the 
economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public 
health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations 
of recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
this Executive order.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P


NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION (NIGC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 
(Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary purpose of providing 
``a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a 
means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and 
strong tribal governments.'' IGRA established the National Indian 
Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission) to protect such gaming, 
amongst other things, as a means of generating Tribal revenue for 
strengthening Tribal governance and Tribal communities.
    At its core, Indian gaming is a function of sovereignty exercised 
by Tribal Governments. In addition, the Federal government maintains a 
government-to-government relationship with the tribes--a responsibility 
of the NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is committed to strong regulation 
of Indian gaming, the Commission is equally committed to strengthening 
government-to-government relations by engaging in meaningful 
consultation with Tribes to fulfill IGRA's intent. The NIGC's vision is 
to adhere to principles of good government, including transparency to 
promote Agency accountability and fiscal responsibility, to operate 
consistently to ensure fairness and clarity in the administration of 
IGRA, and to respect the responsibilities of each sovereign to fully 
promote Tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, a strong 
workforce, and strong tribal governments. The NIGC is fully committed 
to working with Tribes to ensure the integrity of the industry by 
exercising its regulatory responsibilities through technical 
assistance, compliance, and enforcement activities.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    As an independent regulatory agency, the NIGC has been performing a 
retrospective review of its existing regulations well before Executive 
Order 13771 was issued on January 30, 2017. The NIGC, however, 
recognizes the importance of Executive Order 13771 and its regulatory 
review is being conducted in the spirit of Executive Order 13771, to 
identify those regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, 
insufficient, or excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, 
expand, or repeal them in accordance with input from the public. In 
addition, as required by Executive Order 13175, issued on November 6, 
2000, the Commission has been conducting government-to-government 
consultations with Tribes regarding each regulation's relevancy, 
consistency in application, and limitations or barriers to 
implementation, based on the Tribes' experiences. The consultation 
process is also intended to result in the identification of areas for 
improvement and needed amendments, if any, new regulations, and the 
possible repeal of outdated regulations.
    The following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been 
identified as associated with the review:

[[Page 57984]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                RIN                                 Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3141-AA32..........................  Definitions.
3141-AA55..........................  Class III Minimum Internal Control
                                      Standards.
3141-AA58..........................  Management Contracts.
3141-AA60..........................  Class II Minimum Internal Control
                                      Standards.
3141-AA62..........................  Buy Indian Goods and Services
                                      (BIGS) Rule.
3141-AA68..........................  Audit Regulations.
3141-AA69..........................  Class II Minimum Technical
                                      Standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 and 
provide clarity; (ii) updates or revisions to its management contract 
regulations to address the current state of the industry; (iii) the 
review and revision of the minimum internal control standards (MICS) 
for Class II gaming; (iv) regulation that would provide a preference to 
qualified Indian-owned businesses when purchasing goods or services for 
the Commission at a fair market price; (v) the review and revision of 
the minimum technical standards for Class II gaming; and (vi) updates 
or revisions to the existing audit regulations to reduce cost burdens 
for small or charitable gaming operations. The Commission has decided 
to suspend the Class III minimum internal control standards at 25 CFR 
part 542 and publish updated standards as guidance documents.
    NIGC is committed to staying up to date on developments in the 
gaming industry, including best practices and emerging technologies. 
Further, the Commission aims to continue reviewing its regulations to 
determine whether they are overly burdensome to smaller, rural 
operations. The NIGC anticipates that the ongoing consultation with 
Tribes will continue to play an important role in the development of 
the NIGC's rulemaking efforts.

BILLING CODE 7565-01-P

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2019

I. Introduction

    Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the possession and use of source, 
byproduct, and special nuclear material. Our regulatory mission is to 
license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, 
and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public 
health and safety, and promote the common defense and security. As part 
of our mission, we regulate the operation of nuclear power plants and 
fuel-cycle facilities; the safeguarding of nuclear materials from theft 
and sabotage; the safe transport, storage, and disposal of radioactive 
materials and wastes; the decommissioning and safe release for other 
uses of licensed facilities that are no longer in operation; and the 
medical, industrial, and research applications of nuclear material. In 
addition, we license the import and export of radioactive materials.
    As part of our regulatory process, we routinely conduct 
comprehensive regulatory analyses that examine the costs and benefits 
of contemplated regulations. We have developed internal procedures and 
programs to ensure that we impose only necessary requirements on our 
licensees and to review existing regulations to determine whether the 
requirements imposed are still necessary.
    Our regulatory priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2019 reflect our 
safety and security mission and will enable us to achieve our two 
strategic goals described in NUREG-1614, Volume 7, ``Strategic Plan: 
Fiscal Years 2018-2022'' (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1614/v7/ sr1614/v7/):
    (1) To ensure the safe use of radioactive materials, and (2) to 
ensure the secure use of radioactive materials.

II. Regulatory Priorities

    This section contains information on some of our most important and 
significant regulatory actions that we are considering issuing in 
proposed or final form during FY 2019. For additional information on 
these regulatory actions and on a broader spectrum of our upcoming 
regulatory actions, see our portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory 
and Deregulatory Actions. We also provide additional information on 
planned rulemaking and petition for rulemaking activities, including 
priority and schedule, on our website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/rules-petitions.html.

A. Proposed Rules

    American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions 
Incorporation by Reference (RIN 3150-AJ74; NRC-2016-0082): This 
proposed rule would amend the NRC's regulations to incorporate by 
reference the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the 
2015 and 2017 Editions of the ASME Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 
Power Plants (OM Code).
    Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR-1400) Design Certification (RIN 
3150-AJ67; NRC-2015-0224): This proposed rule would amend the NRC's 
regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' by adding a new appendix for the initial certification of the 
APR1400 standard plant design (Korea Electric Power Corporation and 
Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd).
    Cyber Security for Fuel Facilities (RIN 3150-AJ64; NRC-2015-0179): 
This proposed rule would add cyber security requirements to the NRC's 
regulations applicable to certain nuclear fuel-cycle facility 
applicants and licensees. This proposed rule would assure that these 
fuel-cycle facilities adequately detect, protect against, and respond 
to a cyber attack capable of causing one or more of the consequences of 
concern defined in the proposed rule.
    Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal (RIN 3150-AI92; NRC-2011-
0012): This supplemental proposed rule would require licensees for low-
level radioactive waste disposal facilities under 10 CFR part 61, 
``Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'' to 
conduct site-specific analyses, including an intruder assessment, and 
make additional changes to the current regulations to reduce ambiguity 
and facilitate implementation.
    Regulatory Improvements for Production or Utilization Facilities 
Transitioning to Decommissioning (RIN 3150-AJ59; NRC-2015-0070): This 
proposed rule would amend the NRC's

[[Page 57985]]

regulations that relate to the decommissioning of production and 
utilization facilities.
    Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases, 
Revision 38 (RIN 3150-AJ93; NRC-2017-0024): This proposed rule would 
incorporate by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a, ``Codes and standards,'' 
the ASME Code cases that the NRC finds to be acceptable or 
conditionally acceptable.

B. Final Rules

    The following rulemaking activities meet the requirements of a 
significant regulatory action in Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' because they are likely to have an annual effect 
on the economy of $100 million or more.
    Mitigation of Beyond Design Basis Events (RIN 3150-AJ49; NRC-2011-
0189, NRC-2014-0240): This final rule would enhance mitigation 
strategies for nuclear power reactors to respond to beyond-design-basis 
external events.
    Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 2019 (RIN 3150-AJ99; 
NRC-2017-0032): This final rule would amend the NRC's fee schedules for 
licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants and 
licensees.

NRC

Proposed Rule Stage

175. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal [NRC-2011-0012]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 20; 10 CFR 61.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the NRC's regulations to 
revise the licensing requirements for low-level radioactive waste 
disposal. The rule would ensure that the waste streams that are 
significantly different from those considered during the development of 
existing regulations will continue to be disposed of safely and meet 
the performance objectives for land disposal of low-level radioactive 
waste. The rule would require certain licensees and applicants to 
conduct site-specific analyses, including a new intruder assessment, 
using a specified compliance period and would make other clarifying 
changes.
    Statement of Need: The rule would amend the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's (NRC) regulations to require low-level radioactive waste 
(LLRW) disposal facilities to conduct site-specific analyses to 
demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives. Although the 
NRC believes that part 61 is adequate to protect public health and 
safety, requiring a site-specific analysis to demonstrate compliance 
with the performance objectives would enhance the safe disposal of LLRW 
and would provide added assurance that waste streams not considered in 
the part 61 technical basis comply with the part 61 performance 
objectives. Further, these analyses would identify any additional 
measures that would be prudent to implement. These amendments would 
improve the efficiency of the regulations by making changes to reduce 
ambiguity, facilitate implementation, and better align the requirements 
with the current and more modern health and safety regulations. This 
rulemaking would correct ambiguities and provide added assurance that 
LLRW disposal continues to meet the performance objectives in part 61.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC published a regulatory 
analysis examining the costs and benefits associated with the proposed 
rule. Agreement States and industry (licensees) incur implementation 
and ongoing costs. The benefits of the regulatory action include 
allowing licensees to optimize disposal capacity and ensuring that LLRW 
streams that are significantly different from those considered during 
the development of the current regulations can be disposed of safely, 
minimizing future mitigation. These benefits are likely to avert 
potential future costs to licensees. The rule is cost-justified because 
the regulatory initiatives enhance public health and safety by ensuring 
the safe disposal of LLRW.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Proposed Rule Language..   05/03/11  76 FR 24831
Comment Period End..................   06/18/11
Preliminary Draft Rule Language;       12/07/12  77 FR 72997
 Second Request for Comment.
Comment Period End..................   01/07/13
Preliminary Draft Rule Language;       01/08/13  78 FR 1155
 Second Request for Comment;
 Correction.
NPRM................................   03/26/15  80 FR 16082
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/24/15
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   08/27/15  80 FR 51964
NPRM Reopening of Comment Period End   09/21/15
Supplemental NPRM...................   12/00/18
Final Rule..........................   08/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Staff intends to publish a supplemental 
proposed rule later in 2018, per Commission direction.
    Agency Contact: Gary Comfort, Jr., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Phone: 301 415-8106, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AI92

NRC

176. Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities 
Transitioning to Decommissioning [NRC-2015-0070]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73; 10 CFR 26; 10 CFR 140.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the NRC's regulations to 
provide an appropriate regulatory framework for nuclear power reactors 
transitioning from operations to decommissioning. The goals of this 
rulemaking are to provide for a safe, effective, and efficient 
decommissioning process; to reduce the need for license amendment 
requests and exemptions from existing regulations; and to address other 
decommissioning issues deemed relevant by the NRC. The rulemaking would 
address lessons learned from licensees that have completed or are 
currently in the decommissioning process, and would align regulatory 
requirements with the reduction in risk that occurs over time, while 
continuing

[[Page 57986]]

to maintain safety and security. The rulemaking was previously titled, 
``Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to 
Decommissioning.'' The scope of this rulemaking would affect nuclear 
production and utilization facilities.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would respond to Commission 
direction to proceed with rulemaking for reactors transitioning to 
decommissioning. The goals are to provide for a safe, effective, and 
efficient decommissioning process; to reduce the need for license 
amendment requests and exemptions from existing regulations; and to 
address other decommissioning issues deemed relevant by the NRC.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC published a regulatory basis 
document examining the costs and benefits associated with the proposed 
rule. The cost-benefit analysis shows that the rulemaking would result 
in a net averted cost of between $12.5 million to $32.3 million, in 
which the rulemaking costs would be offset by the eliminated need for 
exemption requests or licensing amendment submittals that licensees 
would typically submit to the NRC for review and approval during 
decommissioning.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   11/19/15  80 FR 72358
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/04/16
ANPRM Extension of Comment Period...   12/28/15  80 FR 80709
ANPRN Extension of Comment Period      03/18/16
 End.
Draft Regulatory Basis..............   03/15/17  82 FR 13778
Draft Regulatory Basis Comment         06/13/17
 Period End.
Final Regulatory Basis..............   11/27/17  82 FR 55954
NPRM................................   10/00/18
Final Rule..........................   12/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: The Commission directed the NRC staff to 
proceed with rulemaking in the Staff Requirements Memorandum on SECY-
14-0118, ``Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from 
Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,'' which can be accessed in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14364A111.
    Agency Contact: Daniel Doyle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Phone: 301 415-3748, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AJ59

NRC

177. Cyber Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities [NRC-2015-0179]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 73.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the NRC's regulations to add 
cyber security requirements for certain nuclear fuel cycle facility 
applicants and licensees. The rule would require certain fuel cycle 
facilities to establish, implement, and maintain a cyber security 
program that is designed to protect public health and safety and the 
common defense and security. It would affect fuel cycle applicants or 
licensees that are or plan to be authorized to: (1) Possess greater 
than a critical mass of special nuclear material and perform activities 
for which the NRC requires an integrated safety analysis or (2) engage 
in uranium hexafluoride conversion or deconversion.
    Statement of Need: The NRC currently does not have a comprehensive 
regulatory framework for addressing cyber security at fuel cycle 
facilities (FCFs). Each FCF licensee is subject to either design basis 
threats (DBTs) or to the Interim Compensatory Measures (ICM) Orders 
issued to all FCF licensees subsequent to the events of September 11, 
2001. Both the DBTs and the ICM Orders contain a provision that these 
licensees include consideration of a cyber attack when considering 
security vulnerabilities. However, the NRC's current regulations do not 
provide specific requirements or guidance on how to implement these 
performance objectives. Since the issuance of the ICM Orders and the 
2007 DBT rulemaking, the threats to digital assets have increased both 
globally and nationally. Cyber attacks have increased in number, become 
more sophisticated, resulted in physical consequences, and targeted 
digital assets similar to those used by FCF licensees. The rulemaking 
would establish requirements for FCF licensees to establish, implement, 
and maintain a cyber security program to detect, protect against, and 
respond to a cyber attack capable of causing a consequence of concern. 
The design of this cyber security program would provide flexibility to 
account for the various types of FCFs, promote common defense and 
security, and provide reasonable assurance that the public health and 
safety remain adequately protected against the evolving risk of cyber 
attacks.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC evaluated the provisions of 
the proposed rule in the Regulatory Basis and concluded that the 
provisions provide a substantial increase in the overall protection of 
public health and safety through effective implementation of the cyber 
security program to prevent safety consequences of concern. The 
analysis further demonstrated that the costs for the proposed rule 
provisions are cost justified for the additional protection provided.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Regulatory Basis..............   09/04/15  80 FR 53478
Draft Regulatory Basis Comment         10/05/15
 Period End.
Final Regulatory Basis..............   04/12/16  81 FR 21449
NPRM................................   10/00/18
Final Rule..........................   01/00/20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Gary Comfort, Jr., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Phone: 301 415-8106, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AJ64

NRC

178. American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions 
Incorporation by Reference [NRC-2016-0082]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50.
    Legal Deadline: None.

[[Page 57987]]

    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the NRC's regulations to 
authorize the use of recent editions of the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Codes. The rule would incorporate by 
reference the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code and the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the ASME Operations and 
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants into the NRC's regulations, with 
conditions. This action increases consistency across the industry, and 
makes use of current voluntary consensus standards (as required by the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act), while continuing to 
provide adequate protection to the public. This rulemaking would affect 
nuclear power reactor licensees. The title of the rulemaking was 
revised to address that the rulemaking entitled, ``2017 Edition of the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operations and Maintenance 
Code'' (RIN 3150-AJ90; NRC-2017-0019), was added to the scope of this 
rulemaking along with the rulemaking entitled, ``2017 Edition of the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
Code'' (RIN 3150-AJ91; NRC-2017-0020).
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking enhances the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the NRC's regulations by making use of current 
voluntary consensus approaches and is consistent with applicable 
requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed action is 
42 U.S.C. 2201, 42 U.S.C. 5841, and 10 CFR part 2, Agency Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, ``Subpart H, Rulemaking.''
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NRC has examined the costs and 
benefits associated with the proposed rule. The NRC estimates that the 
proposed rulemaking would result in a net averted cost of between $6.5 
million and $7.7 million, from reducing the industry burden of 
preparing and the NRC burden of reviewing and approving ASME Code 
alternative requests on a plant-specific basis.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18
Final Rule..........................   11/00/19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: James O'Driscoll, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Phone: 301 415-1325, Email: james.o'[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 3150-AJ90, Related to 3150-AJ91
    RIN: 3150-AJ74

NRC

179. Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases, 
Revision 38 [NRC-2017-0024]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 55.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would incorporate by reference into the 
NRC's regulations the latest revision to Regulatory Guides that list 
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Cases that the 
NRC finds to be acceptable (or conditionally acceptable). This action 
increases consistency across the industry and makes use of current 
voluntary consensus standards (as required by the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act), while continuing to provide adequate 
protection to the public. This rulemaking would affect nuclear power 
reactor licensees. This rulemaking was formerly titled, ``Regulatory 
Guide (RG) 1.84, Rev. 38; RG 1.147, Rev. 19; and RG 1.192, Rev. 3; 
Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases.''
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking enhances the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the NRC's regulations by making use of current 
voluntary consensus approaches and is consistent with applicable 
requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rulemaking and guidance 
implementation would result in a cost-justified change based on the net 
averted cost to the industry. Other beneficial factors include meeting 
the NRC goal of ensuring the protection of public health and safety and 
the environment through the NRC's approval of new ASME Code Cases, 
which would allow the use of the most current methods and technology.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/18  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Margaret S. Ellenson, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: 301 415-0894, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AJ93

NRC

180. Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 2019 [NRC-2017-
0032]

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 31 U.S.C. 483; 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 2214; 42 
U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 171.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, September 30, 2019.
    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) 2019, less the amounts 
appropriated from the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, generic 
homeland security activities, and Inspector General services for the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, through fees assessed to 
licensees. Under OBRA-90, the NRC is required to collect the fees for 
FY 2019, by September 30, 2019.
    Abstract: This rule would implement the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, which requires the 
NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in a 
given fiscal year, less the amounts appropriated from the Waste 
Incidental to Reprocessing, generic homeland security activities, and 
Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board, through fees assessed to licensees. This rulemaking would amend 
the Commission's fee schedules for licensing, inspection, and annual 
fees charged to its applicants and licensees. The licensing and 
inspection fees are established under 10 CFR part 170 and recover the 
NRC's cost of providing services to identifiable applicants and

[[Page 57988]]

licensees. Examples of services provided by the NRC for which 10 CFR 
part 170 fees are assessed include license application reviews, license 
renewals, license amendment reviews, and inspections. The annual fees 
established under 10 CFR part 171 recover budgeted costs for generic 
(e.g., research and rulemaking) and other regulatory activities not 
recovered under 10 CFR part 170 fees.
    Statement of Need: The NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed 
by two laws: (1) The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 
(IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701), and (2) OBRA-90. The OBRA-90 statute requires 
the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority 
through fees; this fee-recovery requirement excludes amounts 
appropriated for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, generic homeland 
security activities, and Inspector General (IG) services for the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as well as any amounts 
appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The OBRA-90 statute first 
requires the NRC to use its IOAA authority to collect user fees for NRC 
work that provides specific benefits to identifiable applicants and 
licensees (such as licensing work, inspections, special projects). The 
regulations at part 170 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) authorize these fees. Because the NRC's fee recovery under the 
IOAA (10 CFR part 170) does not equal 90 percent of the NRC's budget 
authority, the NRC also assesses generic annual fees under 10 CFR part 
171 to recover the remaining fees necessary to achieve OBRA-90's 90 
percent fee recovery. These annual fees recover generic regulatory 
costs that are not otherwise collected through 10 CFR part 170.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The OBRA-90, as amended, requires that the 
fees for FY 2019 must be collected by September 30, 2019.
    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 2019 budget authority less the 
amounts appropriated for non-fee items.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/19  .......................
Final Rule..........................   05/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Michele D. Kaplan, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Phone: 301 415-5256, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AJ99

NRC

Final Rule Stage

181. Mitigation of Beyond Design Basis Events (MBDBE) [NRC-2014-0240]

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 52.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the NRC's regulations to 
enhance mitigation strategies for nuclear power reactors to withstand 
beyond-design-basis external events. The rule would produce a more 
seamless accident response capability that includes emergency operating 
procedures and guidelines for beyond-design-basis external events and 
extensive damage mitigation. The scope of this rulemaking would affect 
nuclear power reactor licensees and applicants, and address several 
petitions for rulemaking (PRM-50-96, PRM-50-97, PRM-50-98, PRM-50-100, 
PRM-50-101, and PRM-50-102).
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking is intended to make generically 
applicable the requirements in EA-12-049, Order Modifying Licenses with 
Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-
Basis External Events, which was issued on March 12, 2012. This 
rulemaking is also intended to make generically applicable the 
requirements in EA-12-051, Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to 
Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation that was issued on March 12, 
2012. These orders were issued in response to the events that occurred 
at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station on March 11, 2011, 
involving an earthquake and tsunami.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Order EA-12-049 requirements were imposed 
on current power reactor licensees under 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(ii) as 
being required for adequate protection of public health and safety. The 
Commission imposed Order EA-12-051 requirements through an 
administrative exception to the backfit analysis requirements in 10 CFR 
50.109. This rulemaking would be making those order requirements 
generically applicable, and it is not anticipated that this action 
would be imposing substantial additional requirements beyond what has 
been already imposed on power reactor licensees by order. All 
additional requirements that involve integration of the station 
blackout mitigation strategies with other existing accident procedure 
and guideline sets must be justified under the NRC's backfitting 
regulations.
    Alternatives: As an alternative to the rulemaking, the NRC staff 
considered the ``non-action'' alternative. This alternative would mean 
that the NRC would be required to issue orders or impose license 
conditions on each new reactor licensed to ensure that the requirements 
continue to be imposed on all power reactor licensees. This alternative 
also would not require operators of nuclear power plants to strengthen 
and integrate various emergency response capabilities, improve 
strategies for large-scale events to promote effective decisionmaking 
at all levels, and have training/qualification/evaluation of key 
personnel to implement the procedures and strategies. This is not the 
optimal regulatory approach and not consistent with the NRC's 
principles of good regulation. The NRC sees benefit in pursuing a 
rulemaking that enables lessons-learned from implementation of EA-12-
049 and external stakeholder feedback (through the public comment 
process) to be considered within the rulemaking to inform the 
requirements that are placed into the Code of Federal Regulations, 
which would then remove the need to issue orders or impose license 
conditions on each future reactor licensee.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The portions of the rulemaking that 
entails making station blackout mitigation strategies and reliable 
spent fuel pool instrumentation generically applicable is not 
anticipated to impose significant additional costs beyond those that 
are already being incurred due to implementation of EA-12-049 and EA-
12-051. The benefits associated with the mitigation strategies will 
occur as a result of EA-12-049 and EA-12-051 implementation rather than 
as a result of this rulemaking. The costs and benefits associated with 
the integrated response capability portion of this

[[Page 57989]]

rulemaking will be described in a supporting regulatory analysis.
    Risks: The risks associated with beyond-design-basis external 
events have not been estimated with sufficient certainty to enable a 
quantitative measure of risk to be determined for these events, 
including the corresponding benefit associated with implementation of 
the new mitigation strategies.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/13/15  80 FR 70610
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/11/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   10/00/18  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: The draft final rule was provided to the 
Commission in December 2016.
    Agency Contact: Meena Khanna, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Phone: 301 415-2150, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Merged with 3150-AJ11, Merged with 3150-AJ08
    RIN: 3150-AJ49

NRC

182. Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR-1400) Design Certification [NRC-
2015-0224]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    E.O. 13771 Designation: Independent agency.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 52.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the NRC's regulations to 
incorporate the Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR1400) standard plant 
design. The rulemaking would add a new appendix for the initial 
certification of the APR1400 standard plant design. This action would 
allow applicants intending to construct and operate a nuclear power 
plant to reference this design certification rule in future 
applications. Because the NRC considers this action to be non-
controversial, the NRC is pursuing a direct final rule for this 
rulemaking. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments 
on the rule, the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct 
final rule and will address the comments received in a subsequent final 
rule.
    Statement of Need: This rule would place the APR1400 standard 
design certification, once issued by the Commission, into the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR). The regulations in 10 CFR 52.51 require the 
Commission to initiate rulemaking after an application is filed under 
10 CFR 52.45, by which 10 CFR 52.41 allows any person to seek a 
standard design certification. This action is separate from the filing 
of an application for construction permit or combined license (COL) for 
such a facility. This rule would provide a COL applicant the ability to 
incorporate by reference this official certified standard design into 
its application. This design certification rule (DCR) also gives the 
public a chance to comment on the design before it receives finality.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no current utilities 
seeking to build or operate an APR1400 nuclear power plant within the 
United States. There is no anticipated major increase in costs for 
consumers, individual industries, or geographical regions as a result 
of the APR1400 DCR because this action does not constitute the license 
for construction of a nuclear power plant at a site.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Final Rule...................   02/00/19  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: The NRC staff is developing the regulatory 
basis.
    Agency Contact: Robert Beall, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Phone: 301 415-3874, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AJ67

[FR Doc. 2018-24084 Filed 11-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P