Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely; Administrative Delay of Effective Date; Correction, 15404-15408 [2021-05907]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15404
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
AWP AZ E5 Kayenta, AZ [Revoked]
Bedard Field, AZ
(Lat. 36°28′18″ N, long. 110°25′05″ W)
Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on
March 12, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support
Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021–05601 Filed 3–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Nicole R. LeBoeuf,
Acting Assistant Administrator,National
Ocean Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
15 CFR Part 922
[Docket No. 210318–0059]
RIN 0648–BA21
Expansion of Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary; Notification
of Effective Date and Technical
Amendment
Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notification of effective date of
final rule; technical amendment.
AGENCY:
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
providing notice that the final rule
published on January 19, 2021 to
expand Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS) is effective
on March 22, 2021. NOAA is also
amending the FGBNMS regulations to
reflect the effective date.
DATES: The final rule to expand Flower
Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary, which was published at 86
FR 4937 on January 19, 2021, is effective
on March 22, 2021. The technical
amendment in this document is
effective on March 22, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George P. Schmahl, Superintendent,
Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary, 4700 Avenue U, Building
216, Galveston, Texas 77551, at 409–
356–0383, or fgbexpansion@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to Section 304(b) of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C.
1434(b)), NOAA published the
designation and final regulations to
implement the expansion of FGBNMS
published on January 19, 2021 (86 FR
4937). As required by the NMSA, the
designation and regulations would
become effective following the close of
a review period of 45 days of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
continuous session of Congress
beginning on the date of publication.
Moreover, a Presidential Memorandum
issued on January 20, 2021 required
agencies to consider a 60-day
postponement in new regulations.
Accordingly, NOAA announces the
designation and the final regulations to
implement the expansion of FGBNMS is
effective on March 22, 2021. With this
document, NOAA is also amending the
FGBNMS regulations at § 922.122 (e)(1)
to update and reflect the effective date
of March 22, 2021.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
above, NOAA amends part 922, title 15
of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE
SANCTUARY PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 922
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
Subpart L—Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary
§ 922.122
[Amended]
2. Amend § 922.122(e)(1) by adding
‘‘March 22, 2021,’’ before the phrase
‘‘the effective date of the revised terms
of sanctuary designation’’.
■
[FR Doc. 2021–06051 Filed 3–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 6
Public Health Service
42 CFR Part 1
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 404
Office of the Inspector General
42 CFR Part 1000
Office of the Secretary
45 CFR Part 8
Administration for Children and
Families
45 CFR Parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and
1300
[Docket No. HHS–OS–2020–0012]
RIN 0991–AC24
Securing Updated and Necessary
Statutory Evaluations Timely;
Administrative Delay of Effective Date;
Correction
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective
date and correction.
AGENCY:
The Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS or Department) is
postponing, pending judicial review, the
effective date of a final rule entitled
‘‘Securing Updated and Necessary
Statutory Evaluations Timely’’ (SUNSET
final rule) and published in the Federal
Register of January 19, 2021. This
document also corrects certain errors in
the SUNSET final rule.
DATES: As of March 19, 2021, the
effective date of the final rule published
January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5694), is
delayed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 705 for one
year until March 22, 2022.
This correction is effective as of
March 22, 2022, and amendatory
instruction #10 in FR 2021–00597 (86
FR 5694), published on January 19,
2021, is corrected.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel J. Barry, Acting General Counsel,
200 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20201; or by email at
reviewnprm@hhs.gov; or by telephone at
1–877–696–6775.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
The
SUNSET final rule was scheduled to
take effect on March 22, 2021. On March
9, 2021, a lawsuit was filed seeking to
overturn the SUNSET final rule. HHS
finds that the interests of justice require
that the SUNSET final rule’s effective
date be postponed pending judicial
review because: Based on HHS’s initial
review of the Complaint, HHS believes
that the Court could find merit in some
of Plaintiffs’ claims; Plaintiffs’
allegations of harm are credible; a
postponement will permit HHS to
review the SUNSET final rule in light of
the claims raised in the litigation; and
the balance of equities and the public
interest warrant postponement of the
effective date to preserve the status quo
while the Court considers the challenge
to the SUNSET final rule. This
document also corrects certain errors in
the SUNSET final rule.
In the Federal Register of November
4, 2020 (85 FR 70096), HHS published
a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled
‘‘Securing Updated and Necessary
Statutory Evaluations Timely’’
(SUNSET). Under the rule as proposed,
subject to certain exceptions,
Department regulations would expire at
the end of (1) two calendar years after
the year that the SUNSET rule first
became effective, (2) ten calendar years
after the year of the regulation’s
promulgation, or (3) ten calendar years
after the last year in which the
Department ‘‘assessed’’ and, if required,
‘‘reviewed’’ the regulation, whichever
was latest. Thus, under the proposed
rule, unless HHS ‘‘assessed’’ and, if
required, ‘‘reviewed’’ most of its
regulations within a certain timeframe
specified in the rule (for most existing
regulations, within two years) and every
ten years thereafter, the regulations
would expire. The proposed rule also
provided that if a ‘‘review’’ led to a
finding that a regulation should be
amended or rescinded, the Department
must amend or rescind the regulation
within a specified timeframe (generally
two years). In addition, the proposed
rule contained certain publication
requirements, including that (1) the
Department publish the results of all
‘‘assessments’’ and ‘‘reviews,’’ including
the full underlying analyses and data
used to support the results, in the
Federal Register, and (2) the
Department announce the
commencement of an ‘‘assessment’’ or
‘‘review’’ of a particular regulation on
the agency website, with an opportunity
for public comment. The proposed rule
provided that comments could be
submitted until December 4, 2020,
except for comments on the portion of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
the rule amending 42 CFR parts 400–
429 and parts 475–499, which were due
by January 4, 2021.
In the Federal Register of November
16, 2020 (85 FR 73007), HHS announced
a public hearing, scheduled for
November 23, 2020, to receive
information and views on the proposed
rule (Public Hearing).
In the Federal Register of January 19,
2021 (86 FR 5694), HHS issued the
SUNSET final rule. The final rule
provides that all regulations, subject to
certain exceptions, issued by the
Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services (Secretary) or their
delegates or sub-delegates in titles 21,
42, and 45 of the CFR shall expire at the
end of (1) five calendar years after the
year that the SUNSET final rule first
becomes effective, (2) ten calendar years
after the year of the regulation’s
promulgation, or (3) ten calendar years
after the last year in which the
Department ‘‘assessed’’ and, if required,
‘‘reviewed’’ the regulation, whichever is
latest. Thus, the final rule contains the
same basic expiration framework as the
proposed rule, but extends the
timeframe for ‘‘assessment’’ and any
applicable ‘‘review’’ of most existing
regulations from two calendar years to
five calendar years. The final rule also
provides for ‘‘continuation’’ of a
regulation that is subject to expiration if
the Secretary makes a written
determination that the public interest
requires continuation. In addition, the
final rule contains exemptions for a
small set of certain Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulations. The
final rule maintains the timeframe for
amendment or rescission of regulations,
as well as the publication requirements,
and includes a new Federal Register
publication requirement. The final rule
also expands its reach to include
additional provisions regarding parts of
HHS not specifically included in the
proposed rule. The final rule states that
its effective date is March 22, 2021.
On March 9, 2021, the County of
Santa Clara, California Tribal Families
Coalition, National Association of
Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, American
Lung Association, Center for Science in
the Public Interest, and Natural
Resources Defense Council sued the
Department seeking to overturn the
SUNSET final rule under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Complaint, County of Santa Clara v.
HHS, Case No. 5:21–cv–01655–BLF
(N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that the
SUNSET final rule is ultra vires, see id.
¶¶ 123–30; arbitrary and capricious, see
id. ¶¶ 131–33; in violation of the APA’s
notice-and-comment requirements, see
id. ¶¶ 134–39; and in violation of HHS’s
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15405
Tribal Consultation Policy, see id.
¶¶ 140–44. Plaintiffs further allege that
the SUNSET final rule threatens
imminent and irreparable harm to them
and the general public, including by
creating regulatory confusion and
uncertainty that will impede their
ongoing operations, budgeting, and
planning activities. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 100–
02; see generally id. ¶¶ 95–122.
Under 5 U.S.C. 705 of the APA, an
agency ‘‘may postpone the effective date
of action taken by it, pending judicial
review,’’ when the ‘‘agency finds that
justice so requires.’’ HHS has concluded
that the interests of justice require that
the SUNSET final rule be stayed
pending judicial review. As discussed
in greater detail below, HHS believes
that the Court may find merit in some
of Plaintiffs’ claims, that Plaintiffs’
allegations of harm are credible, and
that the balance of equities and the
public interest warrant postponement of
the effective date pending judicial
review. Accordingly, the interests of
justice require a postponement in order
to preserve the status quo, because, if
the rule took effect while HHS was
evaluating the rule in light of the claims
raised in litigation, it could create
significant obligations for HHS, cause
confusion for the public, including
Plaintiffs, and may lead to compliance
costs as entities, including Plaintiffs,
plan steps necessary to deal with the
rule’s implementation, as explained
below. HHS is unaware of any benefits
from the implementation of the
SUNSET final rule that would be
significantly curtailed from a stay of its
effective date.
The Department is taking a fresh and
critical look at the SUNSET final rule in
light of the allegations in the Complaint
(although many of these concerns were
also raised during the comment period
on the proposed rule). The Complaint
alleges serious legal vulnerabilities of
the rule, and, while HHS does not
concede any of these claims at this time,
HHS requires additional time to
evaluate the SUNSET final rule given
the pending litigation. In addition, the
Complaint raises the question as to
whether the SUNSET final rule, issued
in the final days of the last
administration, is consistent with the
policies and goals of the current
administration, both in terms of the
appropriate role of regulatory oversight
of the health care industry and
necessary engagement with the public,
including tribal organizations.
The Complaint makes numerous
allegations that the substantive
provisions of SUNSET final rule violate
the law. The Complaint alleges that the
SUNSET final rule is contrary to and
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
15406
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
exceeds the Department’s authority
under the APA, substantive organic
statutes, and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) because it schedules the
rescission of thousands of regulations
that were required by statute, amends
regulations without the same level of
process and statutory considerations
required for the original regulations, and
provides for automatic elimination of
regulations without considering the
requirements of the RFA. The
Complaint further alleges that the
SUNSET final rule is arbitrary and
capricious and lacks a rational basis
because, among other reasons, it
assumes that HHS will conduct RFA
reviews at an implausible pace; does not
adequately consider the extreme degree
of regulatory uncertainty the SUNSET
final rule creates; underestimates the
burden imposed on Plaintiffs for
monitoring HHS regulations to ensure
they do not expire; and fails to consider
the specific regulations being amended
to automatically expire.
Given the volume of HHS agency
regulations that the Department would
need to assess and, as applicable, review
in a short period of time, HHS now
believes it is likely some regulations
would expire without any additional
administrative process (contrary to the
conclusions reached in the SUNSET
final rule). Under the SUNSET final
rule, for each covered regulation, HHS
agencies would need to: Collect data to
conduct the relevant evaluation,
perform an assessment and possibly a
review, consider any comments to the
public docket related to the evaluation,
publish the results of this process in the
Federal Register (‘‘including the full
underlying analyses and data used to
support the results,’’ 86 FR at 5712),
and, if warranted, complete a
rulemaking to amend or rescind the
regulation, which would itself require
an additional investment of agencies’
resources and public input. If the work
is unable to be conducted within the
final rule’s time frames, the regulations
would expire.
That outcome could raise interrelated
administrative law questions regarding:
Whether regulations promulgated
through notice and comment
rulemaking can be terminated through
an umbrella rule without individualized
consideration of the expiring
regulations, including any reliance
interests of parties affected by them;
and, if so, whether the proposed/final
rule provided an adequate justification
for implementing a process of automatic
expiration.
The expiration component of the
SUNSET final rule also raises significant
policy and public health questions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
concerning the value of the assessment
and review processes and whether those
processes are so important that they
outweigh the value of the regulations
that would likely expire.
The potential automatic expiration of
regulatory programs could create
uncertainty and unpredictability
regarding large swathes of the rules
governing health care, which would
upend the status quo and in turn could
result in compliance costs to HHS
grantees, contractors, and health care
providers and suppliers, many of whom
may have structured matters such as
financial arrangements and business
operations to satisfy the conditions set
forth in the current regulations. The
resulting disruption in the marketplace
could impact stakeholders who rely on
the regulatory functions of each HHS
agency. This uncertainty could have
serious implications for insurance
markets, hospitals, physicians, and
patients, among other affected parties,
which could lead physicians and other
regulated entities to forgo future
investments because of the lack of
clarity. In addition, because States
depend on HHS to set national
standards and have built vast regulatory
systems within that framework, the
possibility that many regulations would
lapse could pose a direct threat to the
States’ healthcare systems and the
health and safety of individuals. The
expiration of regulations could also
muddle the clarity and predictability of
existing regulations, which in turn
would impede program implementation
and reduce HHS’s overall efficiency.
HHS is similarly concerned that the
SUNSET final rule may have
significantly underestimated the burden
of the assessments and reviews for this
magnitude of regulations and fails to
account for the substantial resources
that would be needed for the HHS
agencies to simultaneously evaluate
thousands of regulations in a short
period of time. For example, the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
included in the final rule appears to
focus on the number of staff and staff
hours required for ‘‘reviews,’’ but
provides an incomplete estimate for the
cost of the initial ‘‘assessment’’ phase.
That raises questions regarding whether
the RIA significantly underestimated the
costs that will be incurred by agencies
and overestimates the purported cost
savings. Currently, there is no accurate
impact analysis of the substantial
redirection of resources (both financial
and employee) required to provide the
necessary expertise and input from
economists, epidemiologists, medical
officers, legal and regulatory counsel,
and other subject matter experts.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Complaint also alleges that the
promulgation of the SUNSET final rule
suffered from procedural deficiencies.
Plaintiffs allege that, despite widespread
requests for more time, HHS issued the
SUNSET final rule after providing 30
days to comment on the rule’s effect on
non-Medicare regulations and 60 days
to comment on its effects on Medicare
regulations, seriously interfering with
meaningful public participation. The
comments likewise raised concerns
about the adequacy of the comment
period for a rule with this magnitude of
impact and the timing of the proposal,
particularly during the COVID–19
pandemic, both of which may have
impeded the full and deliberate
consideration of all of the potential
issues related to the SUNSET rule. For
example, at the Public Hearing, almost
all commenters agreed that HHS should
have lengthened the comment period,
and offered several reasons in support of
a longer comment period, all of which
were expressed by multiple
commenters: That a proposal with this
breadth, scope, and potential harmful
impact, including unintended
detrimental consequences to regulated
industries, merited more time for
thoughtful public input; that impacted
stakeholders included small businesses
that would not be able to digest and
comment on a rule of this breadth in
such a short period of time; that it was
irresponsible for HHS to engage in this
rulemaking during the height of the
pandemic when stakeholder resources
were devoted to addressing the public
health emergency; and that the already
short comment period included
Thanksgiving weekend, which
exacerbated the time-crunch for
commenters. See Transcript, Public
Hearing on the Securing Updated and
Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Public
Hearing Transcript) (Nov. 23, 2020)
(available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/HHSOS-2020-0012-0501). As with Plaintiffs’
above substantive claims, HHS requires
additional time to review the SUNSET
final rule’s compliance with these
procedural obligations, in light of
Plaintiffs’ claims, before determining
how to proceed in litigation and before
creating uncertainty among the
regulated community. The SUNSET
final rule is uniquely situated in that it
affects an extraordinarily large number
of regulations, which lends support for
Plaintiffs’ procedural claims.
The Complaint also alleges that,
despite the SUNSET final rule’s
sweeping scope and tribal implications,
the Department neglected to consult
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
with tribal governments. Again, these
same concerns were raised in the
written comments on the SUNSET
proposed rule. Under Executive Order
13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments,’’ HHS is required, before
any action is taken that will
significantly affect Indian Tribes, to
consult with Indian Tribes in the
development of the proposed rule to the
extent practicable and permitted by law.
65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). This
required consultation is in recognition
that Tribes should be afforded an
opportunity to comment meaningfully
on the rule’s impact. However, multiple
comments from representatives of
several Tribes and related groups
explained that, despite the enormous
impact that this rule, if implemented,
would have on Tribes, HHS failed to
consult with Tribal governments (or
even notify them regarding the
proposal), contrary to procedures
required under Executive Order 13175.
See, e.g., Comments from the: Saint
Regis Mohawk Tribe; Chickahominy
Indian Tribe; Jena Band of Choctaw
Indians; Nez Perce Tribe; Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians; Mohegan
Tribe of Connecticut; Tanana Chiefs
Conference; Chippewa Cree Tribe of the
Rocky Boy’s Reservation; Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium; United South
and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty
Protection Fund; Northwest Portland
Area Indian Health Board; Quinault
Indian Nation; California Tribal
Families Coalition; National Indian
Child Welfare Association; Tribal Law
and Policy Institute; Tribal Technical
Advisory Group; Native American
Rights Fund, and the National Congress
of American Indians, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/
HHS-OS-2020-0012-0001/comment. In
light of the allegations in the Complaint,
we need to reconsider the conclusion in
the SUNSET final rule that the rule does
not significantly affect Indian Tribes or
have Tribal implications. Accordingly,
HHS requires additional time to review
the SUNSET final rule in light of the
pending litigation.
In publishing the SUNSET final rule,
the Department previously took the
position that the rule complies with the
APA and that the comment period was
adequate, among other things. The
Department’s conclusions rested on
certain assumptions that the Complaint
challenges. For example, the
Department expressed a view that it has
the resources to complete assessments
and reviews and avoid expiration, thus
avoiding many of the legal concerns
related to automatic repeal of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
regulations. See, e.g., 86 FR 5694, 5705
(‘‘The regulatory impact analysis in this
final rule explains how HHS has the
resources and personnel to perform the
Assessments and Reviews called for by
this final rule.’’); id. at 5710 (‘‘HHS does
not intend to allow a regulation to
simply expire.’’); id. at 5711 (‘‘HHS
believes that this final rule does not
significantly affect Indian Tribes or have
Tribal implications . . . HHS intends
that all rules will be Assessed and (if
necessary) Reviewed timely. Therefore,
this final rule would have no direct
impact on Indian Tribes’’); id. at 5714
(‘‘The Department does not intend for
any regulations to inadvertently sunset,
and it is unlikely that any regulations
with significant benefits would slip
through the cracks.’’). However, the
Complaint alleges that ‘‘there is no
realistic probability that the Department
will be able to conduct the number of
reviews required to prevent automatic
rescission,’’ based in part on the
quantity of analyses that would be
required in the first five years and the
agency’s past practices. Complaint,
¶¶ 84–85. As noted above, the
Department now believes that the RIA
developed for the SUNSET final rule
may not have fully taken into account
all of the resource implications of this
rule and therefore misjudged the likely
expiration of existing regulations,
elevating the administrative law
concerns and concerns about the
adequacy of the RIA.
In addition, the Department
previously took the view that a 30-day
comment period was adequate.
However, the Complaint challenges the
sufficiency of a 30-day comment period
for complex rules, Complaint, ¶ 54, and
the SUNSET rule’s unique breadth,
affecting an extraordinarily large
number of regulations, could add force
to such claims. The Department also
took the view that the lack of tribal
consultation was mitigated by the fact
that Tribes will be able to comment on
regulations during the Assessment and
Review processes, 86 FR at 5711, but, as
noted above, HHS is reconsidering that
conclusion in light of the claims raised
in the Complaint.
The Complaint also alleges that
Plaintiffs and others are immediately
harmed by the SUNSET final rule. The
Complaint alleges that the uncertainty
resulting from its implementation
impacts the entire healthcare sector,
which accounts for nearly one-fifth of
the U.S. economy and secures
individual and community health for
hundreds of millions of Americans, and
that participants in every single
industry the Department regulates,
including Plaintiffs, must plan their
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15407
futures and operations without knowing
what regulations will govern their
businesses in these notoriously complex
regulatory arenas. See Complaint, ¶¶ 2,
95–122. While HHS does not concede
that Plaintiffs would establish
irreparable harm in litigation, HHS
agrees that it is appropriate to postpone
the effective date of the SUNSET final
rule to preserve the status quo and to
ensure that HHS has time to evaluate
the rule before it takes effect to avoid
the possibility of confusion among the
regulated community.
In addition, given the scope of work
and timeframes set forth in the SUNSET
final rule, the review required under the
rule would divert the Department’s
resources from mission-critical
endeavors for HHS agencies. For
example, based on a count cited in the
SUNSET final rule, under the timeline
and definitions provided in the final
rule, over 7,000 sections of the Code of
Federal Regulations promulgated by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
are more than ten years old or would
become more than ten years old during
the first five years the rule would be in
effect, representing over 95 percent of
its current regulations. Unless one of the
exemptions applied, these regulations
would need to be assessed within five
years and, if applicable, reviewed, or be
subject to expiration. If the SUNSET
final rule were to become effective as
scheduled on March 22, 2021, then, in
order to meet these new obligations
within the specified timeframe to avoid
automatic expiration of its regulations,
FDA and the Department would need to
immediately divert resources toward
assessment and review during the
ongoing COVID–19 public health
emergency. In that event, FDA’s reviews
of medical product applications,
fulfillment of user fee commitments,
and actions to address urgent public
health matters such as ongoing COVID–
19 pandemic relief efforts, outbreaks of
foodborne illness, inspections, recalls,
and other public health priorities would
be significantly impacted. This
concentration of resources in
conducting regulatory review pursuant
to the SUNSET rule could prevent FDA
from modernizing its regulatory
oversight more efficiently and
addressing new regulatory needs. These
considerations further support HHS’s
determination that justice requires a
postponement of the SUNSET final
rule’s effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 705.
The SUNSET final rule presents
similar burdens for HHS’s seven other
Public Health Service agencies and
three human services agencies, such as
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS), with implications for
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
15408
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
many initiatives. For example,
comments at the Public Hearing from
the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, National
Immigration Law Center, and Service
Employees International Union raised
concerns that the SUNSET rule would
undermine the regulations
underpinning the Affordable Care Act,
potentially with catastrophic
consequences for the health care of
millions of individuals and families. See
Public Hearing Transcript. As another
example, Medicare regulations are
numerous and have an expansive reach,
affecting many health care providers
and suppliers in this country.
Permitting the rule to go into effect
would require CMS to assess thousands
of regulations within a relatively short
timeframe, and would likely entail a
massive expenditure of resources and
significantly increase the Department’s
workload. The rule would also likely
result in significant uncertainty and
compliance costs to Medicare providers
and suppliers, many of which are small
businesses. In addition, this rule could
cause the loss of program protections to
the beneficiaries of HHS programs and
create uncertainty for individuals and
entities subject to administrative
sanctions, or those who seek
reinstatement after exclusion from
participation in Federal health care
programs. The National Health Law
Program also commented at the Public
Hearing that the rule would create
havoc in the Medicaid industry. See
Public Hearing Transcript. All of these
potential consequences would be
detrimental to the public health,
underscoring that justice requires a
postponement of the SUNSET final
rule’s effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
705.
Because of these public health
concerns, and the harms alleged by the
Plaintiffs and echoed in the comments,
the balance of equities and the public
interest favor the issuance of a stay of
the effective date of the SUNSET final
rule to preserve the status quo and allow
for judicial review of its legality before
any implementation.
Accordingly, HHS is issuing this stay
of the effective date of this final rule
pending judicial review. This
postponement applies to all of the
regulations established under the
SUNSET final rule. As noted above, the
Complaint alleges that the SUNSET
final rule suffers from a variety of
defects, including procedural defects
related to its promulgation. The
Department believes it is appropriate to
review the entire rule in light of the
claims raised in the litigation. Thus, this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
postponement reaches the full rule,
consistent with the Complaint’s prayer
for relief.
Separately, this document addresses
and corrects several technical errors
identified by the Office of the Federal
Register in the SUNSET final rule.
Corrections
In FR 2021–00597 (86 FR 5694),
published on January 19, 2021, the
following corrections are made:
1. On page 5694, first column, the list
of CFR citations in the heading under
‘‘Administration for Children and
Families’’ that reads ‘‘45 CFR parts 200,
300, 403, 1010, and 1390’’ is corrected
to read ‘‘45 CFR parts 200, 300, 403,
1010, and 1300.’’
2. On page 5751, first column, the
reference to ‘‘45 CFR part 1390’’ in the
List of Subjects is corrected to read ‘‘45
CFR part 1300.’’
SUBCHAPTER A [Corrected]
3. On page 5763, first column, in
instruction 10, the heading for
subchapter A and the table of contents
for part 1300 are corrected to read as
follows:
■
SUBCHAPTER A—Administrative Matters
PART 1300—REVIEW OF
REGULATIONS
Sec.
1300.1 Retrospective Review of Existing
Regulations.
1300.2 through 1300.5 [Reserved]
Norris Cochran,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–05907 Filed 3–18–21; 4:15 pm]
and members within the DoD.
Therefore, this part can be removed
from the CFR.
DATES: This rule is effective on March
23, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTC
Mark Rea at 703–695–9262.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule
was last updated on March 2, 1979 (44
FR 11781). It has been determined that
publication of this CFR part removal for
public comment is impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to public
interest since it is based on removing
DoD internal policies and procedures.
This rule is redundant in that it
established policy, assigned
responsibilities, and prescribed
procedures for members of DoD on the
operation and oversight of the Military
Service Academies. These internal
policies and procedures are publicly
available on the Department’s issuance
website.
DoD internal policies and guidance
are current and reflective of
requirements in statute, and will
continue to be published in Army
Regulation 150–1, ‘‘United States
Military Academy Organization,
Administration, and Operation’’
(available at https://armypubs.army.mil/
ProductMaps/PubForm/AR.aspx).
This rule is not significant under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 575
Military academies, Military
personnel.
PART 575—[REMOVED]
Accordingly, by the authority of 5
U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 575 is removed.
BILLING CODE 4150–26–P
■
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
James W. Satterwhite Jr.,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Department of the Army
[FR Doc. 2021–05910 Filed 3–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–08–P
32 CFR Part 575
[Docket ID: USA–2020–HQ–0008]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
RIN 0702–AB09
Admission to the United States Military
Academy
Department of the Army,
Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule removes DoD’s
regulation concerning policies for the
command and control of the United
States Military Academy (USMA), the
United States Military Academy
Preparatory School (USMAPS), and the
West Point Military Reservation. This
part applies to organizational entities
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 100 and 165
[Docket Number USCG–2021–0184]
2020 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones,
Security Zones, and Special Local
Regulations
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of expired
temporary rules issued.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document provides
notification of substantive rules issued
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15404-15408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05907]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 6
Public Health Service
42 CFR Part 1
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
42 CFR Part 404
Office of the Inspector General
42 CFR Part 1000
Office of the Secretary
45 CFR Part 8
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1300
[Docket No. HHS-OS-2020-0012]
RIN 0991-AC24
Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely;
Administrative Delay of Effective Date; Correction
AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date and correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or
Department) is postponing, pending judicial review, the effective date
of a final rule entitled ``Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory
Evaluations Timely'' (SUNSET final rule) and published in the Federal
Register of January 19, 2021. This document also corrects certain
errors in the SUNSET final rule.
DATES: As of March 19, 2021, the effective date of the final rule
published January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5694), is delayed pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 705 for one year until March 22, 2022.
This correction is effective as of March 22, 2022, and amendatory
instruction #10 in FR 2021-00597 (86 FR 5694), published on January 19,
2021, is corrected.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Barry, Acting General
Counsel, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; or by email
at [email protected]; or by telephone at 1-877-696-6775.
[[Page 15405]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SUNSET final rule was scheduled to take
effect on March 22, 2021. On March 9, 2021, a lawsuit was filed seeking
to overturn the SUNSET final rule. HHS finds that the interests of
justice require that the SUNSET final rule's effective date be
postponed pending judicial review because: Based on HHS's initial
review of the Complaint, HHS believes that the Court could find merit
in some of Plaintiffs' claims; Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are
credible; a postponement will permit HHS to review the SUNSET final
rule in light of the claims raised in the litigation; and the balance
of equities and the public interest warrant postponement of the
effective date to preserve the status quo while the Court considers the
challenge to the SUNSET final rule. This document also corrects certain
errors in the SUNSET final rule.
In the Federal Register of November 4, 2020 (85 FR 70096), HHS
published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ``Securing Updated
and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely'' (SUNSET). Under the rule
as proposed, subject to certain exceptions, Department regulations
would expire at the end of (1) two calendar years after the year that
the SUNSET rule first became effective, (2) ten calendar years after
the year of the regulation's promulgation, or (3) ten calendar years
after the last year in which the Department ``assessed'' and, if
required, ``reviewed'' the regulation, whichever was latest. Thus,
under the proposed rule, unless HHS ``assessed'' and, if required,
``reviewed'' most of its regulations within a certain timeframe
specified in the rule (for most existing regulations, within two years)
and every ten years thereafter, the regulations would expire. The
proposed rule also provided that if a ``review'' led to a finding that
a regulation should be amended or rescinded, the Department must amend
or rescind the regulation within a specified timeframe (generally two
years). In addition, the proposed rule contained certain publication
requirements, including that (1) the Department publish the results of
all ``assessments'' and ``reviews,'' including the full underlying
analyses and data used to support the results, in the Federal Register,
and (2) the Department announce the commencement of an ``assessment''
or ``review'' of a particular regulation on the agency website, with an
opportunity for public comment. The proposed rule provided that
comments could be submitted until December 4, 2020, except for comments
on the portion of the rule amending 42 CFR parts 400-429 and parts 475-
499, which were due by January 4, 2021.
In the Federal Register of November 16, 2020 (85 FR 73007), HHS
announced a public hearing, scheduled for November 23, 2020, to receive
information and views on the proposed rule (Public Hearing).
In the Federal Register of January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5694), HHS
issued the SUNSET final rule. The final rule provides that all
regulations, subject to certain exceptions, issued by the Secretary of
the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) or their
delegates or sub-delegates in titles 21, 42, and 45 of the CFR shall
expire at the end of (1) five calendar years after the year that the
SUNSET final rule first becomes effective, (2) ten calendar years after
the year of the regulation's promulgation, or (3) ten calendar years
after the last year in which the Department ``assessed'' and, if
required, ``reviewed'' the regulation, whichever is latest. Thus, the
final rule contains the same basic expiration framework as the proposed
rule, but extends the timeframe for ``assessment'' and any applicable
``review'' of most existing regulations from two calendar years to five
calendar years. The final rule also provides for ``continuation'' of a
regulation that is subject to expiration if the Secretary makes a
written determination that the public interest requires continuation.
In addition, the final rule contains exemptions for a small set of
certain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. The final rule
maintains the timeframe for amendment or rescission of regulations, as
well as the publication requirements, and includes a new Federal
Register publication requirement. The final rule also expands its reach
to include additional provisions regarding parts of HHS not
specifically included in the proposed rule. The final rule states that
its effective date is March 22, 2021.
On March 9, 2021, the County of Santa Clara, California Tribal
Families Coalition, National Association of Pediatric Nurse
Practitioners, American Lung Association, Center for Science in the
Public Interest, and Natural Resources Defense Council sued the
Department seeking to overturn the SUNSET final rule under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Complaint, County of Santa Clara v.
HHS, Case No. 5:21-cv-01655-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that the
SUNSET final rule is ultra vires, see id. ]] 123-30; arbitrary and
capricious, see id. ]] 131-33; in violation of the APA's notice-and-
comment requirements, see id. ]] 134-39; and in violation of HHS's
Tribal Consultation Policy, see id. ]] 140-44. Plaintiffs further
allege that the SUNSET final rule threatens imminent and irreparable
harm to them and the general public, including by creating regulatory
confusion and uncertainty that will impede their ongoing operations,
budgeting, and planning activities. See, e.g., id. ]] 100-02; see
generally id. ]] 95-122.
Under 5 U.S.C. 705 of the APA, an agency ``may postpone the
effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review,'' when
the ``agency finds that justice so requires.'' HHS has concluded that
the interests of justice require that the SUNSET final rule be stayed
pending judicial review. As discussed in greater detail below, HHS
believes that the Court may find merit in some of Plaintiffs' claims,
that Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are credible, and that the balance
of equities and the public interest warrant postponement of the
effective date pending judicial review. Accordingly, the interests of
justice require a postponement in order to preserve the status quo,
because, if the rule took effect while HHS was evaluating the rule in
light of the claims raised in litigation, it could create significant
obligations for HHS, cause confusion for the public, including
Plaintiffs, and may lead to compliance costs as entities, including
Plaintiffs, plan steps necessary to deal with the rule's
implementation, as explained below. HHS is unaware of any benefits from
the implementation of the SUNSET final rule that would be significantly
curtailed from a stay of its effective date.
The Department is taking a fresh and critical look at the SUNSET
final rule in light of the allegations in the Complaint (although many
of these concerns were also raised during the comment period on the
proposed rule). The Complaint alleges serious legal vulnerabilities of
the rule, and, while HHS does not concede any of these claims at this
time, HHS requires additional time to evaluate the SUNSET final rule
given the pending litigation. In addition, the Complaint raises the
question as to whether the SUNSET final rule, issued in the final days
of the last administration, is consistent with the policies and goals
of the current administration, both in terms of the appropriate role of
regulatory oversight of the health care industry and necessary
engagement with the public, including tribal organizations.
The Complaint makes numerous allegations that the substantive
provisions of SUNSET final rule violate the law. The Complaint alleges
that the SUNSET final rule is contrary to and
[[Page 15406]]
exceeds the Department's authority under the APA, substantive organic
statutes, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because it schedules
the rescission of thousands of regulations that were required by
statute, amends regulations without the same level of process and
statutory considerations required for the original regulations, and
provides for automatic elimination of regulations without considering
the requirements of the RFA. The Complaint further alleges that the
SUNSET final rule is arbitrary and capricious and lacks a rational
basis because, among other reasons, it assumes that HHS will conduct
RFA reviews at an implausible pace; does not adequately consider the
extreme degree of regulatory uncertainty the SUNSET final rule creates;
underestimates the burden imposed on Plaintiffs for monitoring HHS
regulations to ensure they do not expire; and fails to consider the
specific regulations being amended to automatically expire.
Given the volume of HHS agency regulations that the Department
would need to assess and, as applicable, review in a short period of
time, HHS now believes it is likely some regulations would expire
without any additional administrative process (contrary to the
conclusions reached in the SUNSET final rule). Under the SUNSET final
rule, for each covered regulation, HHS agencies would need to: Collect
data to conduct the relevant evaluation, perform an assessment and
possibly a review, consider any comments to the public docket related
to the evaluation, publish the results of this process in the Federal
Register (``including the full underlying analyses and data used to
support the results,'' 86 FR at 5712), and, if warranted, complete a
rulemaking to amend or rescind the regulation, which would itself
require an additional investment of agencies' resources and public
input. If the work is unable to be conducted within the final rule's
time frames, the regulations would expire.
That outcome could raise interrelated administrative law questions
regarding: Whether regulations promulgated through notice and comment
rulemaking can be terminated through an umbrella rule without
individualized consideration of the expiring regulations, including any
reliance interests of parties affected by them; and, if so, whether the
proposed/final rule provided an adequate justification for implementing
a process of automatic expiration.
The expiration component of the SUNSET final rule also raises
significant policy and public health questions concerning the value of
the assessment and review processes and whether those processes are so
important that they outweigh the value of the regulations that would
likely expire.
The potential automatic expiration of regulatory programs could
create uncertainty and unpredictability regarding large swathes of the
rules governing health care, which would upend the status quo and in
turn could result in compliance costs to HHS grantees, contractors, and
health care providers and suppliers, many of whom may have structured
matters such as financial arrangements and business operations to
satisfy the conditions set forth in the current regulations. The
resulting disruption in the marketplace could impact stakeholders who
rely on the regulatory functions of each HHS agency. This uncertainty
could have serious implications for insurance markets, hospitals,
physicians, and patients, among other affected parties, which could
lead physicians and other regulated entities to forgo future
investments because of the lack of clarity. In addition, because States
depend on HHS to set national standards and have built vast regulatory
systems within that framework, the possibility that many regulations
would lapse could pose a direct threat to the States' healthcare
systems and the health and safety of individuals. The expiration of
regulations could also muddle the clarity and predictability of
existing regulations, which in turn would impede program implementation
and reduce HHS's overall efficiency.
HHS is similarly concerned that the SUNSET final rule may have
significantly underestimated the burden of the assessments and reviews
for this magnitude of regulations and fails to account for the
substantial resources that would be needed for the HHS agencies to
simultaneously evaluate thousands of regulations in a short period of
time. For example, the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) included in the
final rule appears to focus on the number of staff and staff hours
required for ``reviews,'' but provides an incomplete estimate for the
cost of the initial ``assessment'' phase. That raises questions
regarding whether the RIA significantly underestimated the costs that
will be incurred by agencies and overestimates the purported cost
savings. Currently, there is no accurate impact analysis of the
substantial redirection of resources (both financial and employee)
required to provide the necessary expertise and input from economists,
epidemiologists, medical officers, legal and regulatory counsel, and
other subject matter experts.
The Complaint also alleges that the promulgation of the SUNSET
final rule suffered from procedural deficiencies. Plaintiffs allege
that, despite widespread requests for more time, HHS issued the SUNSET
final rule after providing 30 days to comment on the rule's effect on
non-Medicare regulations and 60 days to comment on its effects on
Medicare regulations, seriously interfering with meaningful public
participation. The comments likewise raised concerns about the adequacy
of the comment period for a rule with this magnitude of impact and the
timing of the proposal, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, both
of which may have impeded the full and deliberate consideration of all
of the potential issues related to the SUNSET rule. For example, at the
Public Hearing, almost all commenters agreed that HHS should have
lengthened the comment period, and offered several reasons in support
of a longer comment period, all of which were expressed by multiple
commenters: That a proposal with this breadth, scope, and potential
harmful impact, including unintended detrimental consequences to
regulated industries, merited more time for thoughtful public input;
that impacted stakeholders included small businesses that would not be
able to digest and comment on a rule of this breadth in such a short
period of time; that it was irresponsible for HHS to engage in this
rulemaking during the height of the pandemic when stakeholder resources
were devoted to addressing the public health emergency; and that the
already short comment period included Thanksgiving weekend, which
exacerbated the time-crunch for commenters. See Transcript, Public
Hearing on the Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations
Timely Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Public Hearing Transcript) (Nov.
23, 2020) (available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/HHS-OS-2020-0012-0501). As with Plaintiffs' above substantive claims, HHS
requires additional time to review the SUNSET final rule's compliance
with these procedural obligations, in light of Plaintiffs' claims,
before determining how to proceed in litigation and before creating
uncertainty among the regulated community. The SUNSET final rule is
uniquely situated in that it affects an extraordinarily large number of
regulations, which lends support for Plaintiffs' procedural claims.
The Complaint also alleges that, despite the SUNSET final rule's
sweeping scope and tribal implications, the Department neglected to
consult
[[Page 15407]]
with tribal governments. Again, these same concerns were raised in the
written comments on the SUNSET proposed rule. Under Executive Order
13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments,'' HHS is required, before any action is taken that will
significantly affect Indian Tribes, to consult with Indian Tribes in
the development of the proposed rule to the extent practicable and
permitted by law. 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). This required
consultation is in recognition that Tribes should be afforded an
opportunity to comment meaningfully on the rule's impact. However,
multiple comments from representatives of several Tribes and related
groups explained that, despite the enormous impact that this rule, if
implemented, would have on Tribes, HHS failed to consult with Tribal
governments (or even notify them regarding the proposal), contrary to
procedures required under Executive Order 13175. See, e.g., Comments
from the: Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Chickahominy Indian Tribe; Jena
Band of Choctaw Indians; Nez Perce Tribe; Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians; Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut; Tanana Chiefs
Conference; Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation; Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium; United South and Eastern Tribes
Sovereignty Protection Fund; Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board; Quinault Indian Nation; California Tribal Families Coalition;
National Indian Child Welfare Association; Tribal Law and Policy
Institute; Tribal Technical Advisory Group; Native American Rights
Fund, and the National Congress of American Indians, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/HHS-OS-2020-0012-0001/comment. In
light of the allegations in the Complaint, we need to reconsider the
conclusion in the SUNSET final rule that the rule does not
significantly affect Indian Tribes or have Tribal implications.
Accordingly, HHS requires additional time to review the SUNSET final
rule in light of the pending litigation.
In publishing the SUNSET final rule, the Department previously took
the position that the rule complies with the APA and that the comment
period was adequate, among other things. The Department's conclusions
rested on certain assumptions that the Complaint challenges. For
example, the Department expressed a view that it has the resources to
complete assessments and reviews and avoid expiration, thus avoiding
many of the legal concerns related to automatic repeal of regulations.
See, e.g., 86 FR 5694, 5705 (``The regulatory impact analysis in this
final rule explains how HHS has the resources and personnel to perform
the Assessments and Reviews called for by this final rule.''); id. at
5710 (``HHS does not intend to allow a regulation to simply expire.'');
id. at 5711 (``HHS believes that this final rule does not significantly
affect Indian Tribes or have Tribal implications . . . HHS intends that
all rules will be Assessed and (if necessary) Reviewed timely.
Therefore, this final rule would have no direct impact on Indian
Tribes''); id. at 5714 (``The Department does not intend for any
regulations to inadvertently sunset, and it is unlikely that any
regulations with significant benefits would slip through the
cracks.''). However, the Complaint alleges that ``there is no realistic
probability that the Department will be able to conduct the number of
reviews required to prevent automatic rescission,'' based in part on
the quantity of analyses that would be required in the first five years
and the agency's past practices. Complaint, ]] 84-85. As noted above,
the Department now believes that the RIA developed for the SUNSET final
rule may not have fully taken into account all of the resource
implications of this rule and therefore misjudged the likely expiration
of existing regulations, elevating the administrative law concerns and
concerns about the adequacy of the RIA.
In addition, the Department previously took the view that a 30-day
comment period was adequate. However, the Complaint challenges the
sufficiency of a 30-day comment period for complex rules, Complaint, ]
54, and the SUNSET rule's unique breadth, affecting an extraordinarily
large number of regulations, could add force to such claims. The
Department also took the view that the lack of tribal consultation was
mitigated by the fact that Tribes will be able to comment on
regulations during the Assessment and Review processes, 86 FR at 5711,
but, as noted above, HHS is reconsidering that conclusion in light of
the claims raised in the Complaint.
The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs and others are
immediately harmed by the SUNSET final rule. The Complaint alleges that
the uncertainty resulting from its implementation impacts the entire
healthcare sector, which accounts for nearly one-fifth of the U.S.
economy and secures individual and community health for hundreds of
millions of Americans, and that participants in every single industry
the Department regulates, including Plaintiffs, must plan their futures
and operations without knowing what regulations will govern their
businesses in these notoriously complex regulatory arenas. See
Complaint, ]] 2, 95-122. While HHS does not concede that Plaintiffs
would establish irreparable harm in litigation, HHS agrees that it is
appropriate to postpone the effective date of the SUNSET final rule to
preserve the status quo and to ensure that HHS has time to evaluate the
rule before it takes effect to avoid the possibility of confusion among
the regulated community.
In addition, given the scope of work and timeframes set forth in
the SUNSET final rule, the review required under the rule would divert
the Department's resources from mission-critical endeavors for HHS
agencies. For example, based on a count cited in the SUNSET final rule,
under the timeline and definitions provided in the final rule, over
7,000 sections of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are more than ten years old or would
become more than ten years old during the first five years the rule
would be in effect, representing over 95 percent of its current
regulations. Unless one of the exemptions applied, these regulations
would need to be assessed within five years and, if applicable,
reviewed, or be subject to expiration. If the SUNSET final rule were to
become effective as scheduled on March 22, 2021, then, in order to meet
these new obligations within the specified timeframe to avoid automatic
expiration of its regulations, FDA and the Department would need to
immediately divert resources toward assessment and review during the
ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency. In that event, FDA's reviews
of medical product applications, fulfillment of user fee commitments,
and actions to address urgent public health matters such as ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic relief efforts, outbreaks of foodborne illness,
inspections, recalls, and other public health priorities would be
significantly impacted. This concentration of resources in conducting
regulatory review pursuant to the SUNSET rule could prevent FDA from
modernizing its regulatory oversight more efficiently and addressing
new regulatory needs. These considerations further support HHS's
determination that justice requires a postponement of the SUNSET final
rule's effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 705.
The SUNSET final rule presents similar burdens for HHS's seven
other Public Health Service agencies and three human services agencies,
such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), with
implications for
[[Page 15408]]
many initiatives. For example, comments at the Public Hearing from the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, National Immigration Law Center, and Service
Employees International Union raised concerns that the SUNSET rule
would undermine the regulations underpinning the Affordable Care Act,
potentially with catastrophic consequences for the health care of
millions of individuals and families. See Public Hearing Transcript. As
another example, Medicare regulations are numerous and have an
expansive reach, affecting many health care providers and suppliers in
this country. Permitting the rule to go into effect would require CMS
to assess thousands of regulations within a relatively short timeframe,
and would likely entail a massive expenditure of resources and
significantly increase the Department's workload. The rule would also
likely result in significant uncertainty and compliance costs to
Medicare providers and suppliers, many of which are small businesses.
In addition, this rule could cause the loss of program protections to
the beneficiaries of HHS programs and create uncertainty for
individuals and entities subject to administrative sanctions, or those
who seek reinstatement after exclusion from participation in Federal
health care programs. The National Health Law Program also commented at
the Public Hearing that the rule would create havoc in the Medicaid
industry. See Public Hearing Transcript. All of these potential
consequences would be detrimental to the public health, underscoring
that justice requires a postponement of the SUNSET final rule's
effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 705.
Because of these public health concerns, and the harms alleged by
the Plaintiffs and echoed in the comments, the balance of equities and
the public interest favor the issuance of a stay of the effective date
of the SUNSET final rule to preserve the status quo and allow for
judicial review of its legality before any implementation.
Accordingly, HHS is issuing this stay of the effective date of this
final rule pending judicial review. This postponement applies to all of
the regulations established under the SUNSET final rule. As noted
above, the Complaint alleges that the SUNSET final rule suffers from a
variety of defects, including procedural defects related to its
promulgation. The Department believes it is appropriate to review the
entire rule in light of the claims raised in the litigation. Thus, this
postponement reaches the full rule, consistent with the Complaint's
prayer for relief.
Separately, this document addresses and corrects several technical
errors identified by the Office of the Federal Register in the SUNSET
final rule.
Corrections
In FR 2021-00597 (86 FR 5694), published on January 19, 2021, the
following corrections are made:
1. On page 5694, first column, the list of CFR citations in the
heading under ``Administration for Children and Families'' that reads
``45 CFR parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1390'' is corrected to read
``45 CFR parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1300.''
2. On page 5751, first column, the reference to ``45 CFR part
1390'' in the List of Subjects is corrected to read ``45 CFR part
1300.''
SUBCHAPTER A [Corrected]
0
3. On page 5763, first column, in instruction 10, the heading for
subchapter A and the table of contents for part 1300 are corrected to
read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER A--Administrative Matters
PART 1300--REVIEW OF REGULATIONS
Sec.
1300.1 Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations.
1300.2 through 1300.5 [Reserved]
Norris Cochran,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05907 Filed 3-18-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4150-26-P
