![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2007 REGULATORY PLAN
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: December 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 236)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69743-69792]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10de07-34]
The Regulatory Plan
____________________________________________________________________
[[Page 69743]]
INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2007 REGULATORY PLAN
Federal regulation is a fundamental instrument of
national policy. It is one of the three major tools --
in addition to spending and taxing -- used to implement
policy. It is used to advance numerous public
objectives, including homeland security, environmental
protection, educational quality, food safety,
transportation safety, health care quality, equal
employment opportunity, energy security, immigration
control, and consumer protection. The Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is responsible for overseeing
and coordinating the Federal Government's regulatory
policies.
The Regulatory Plan is published as part of the fall
edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions, and serves as a statement of the
Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies
and priorities. The purpose of the Plan is to make the
regulatory process more accessible to the public and to
ensure that the planning and coordination necessary for
a well-functioning regulatory process occurs. The Plan
identifies regulatory priorities and contains
information about the most significant regulatory
actions that agencies expect to undertake in the coming
year. An accessible regulatory process enables citizen
centered service, which is a vital part of the
President's Management Agenda.
Federal Regulatory Policy
The Bush Administration supports Federal regulations
that are sensible and based on sound science,
economics, and the law. Accordingly, the Administration
is striving for a regulatory process that adopts new
rules when markets fail to serve the public interest,
simplifies and modifies existing rules to make them
more effective or less costly or less intrusive, and
rescinds outmoded rules whose benefits do not justify
their costs. In pursuing this agenda, OIRA has adopted
an approach based on the principles of regulatory
analysis and policy espoused in Executive Order 12866,
signed by President Clinton in 1993.
Effective regulatory policy is not uniformly pro-
regulation or anti-regulation. It begins with the
authority granted under the law. Within the discretion
available to the regulating agency by its statutory
authority, agencies apply a number of principles
articulated in Executive Order 12866, as well as other
applicable Executive Orders, in order to design
regulations that achieve their ends in the most
efficient way. This means bringing to bear on the
policy problem sound economic principles, the highest
quality information, and the best possible science.
This is not always an easy task, as sometimes economic
and scientific information may point in very different
directions, and therefore designing regulations does
not mean just the rote application of quantified data
to reach policy decisions. In making regulatory
decisions, we expect agencies to consider not only
benefit and cost items that can be quantified and
expressed in monetary units, but also other attributes
and factors that cannot be integrated readily in a
benefit-cost framework, such as fairness and privacy.
However, effective regulation is the result of the
careful use of all available high-quality data, and the
application of broad principles established by the
President.
[[Page 69744]]
In pursuing this goal of establishing an effective,
results-oriented regulatory system, the Bush
Administration has increased the level of public
involvement and transparency in the development of
regulations, including in OMB's review of new and
existing regulations.
The Administration's e-rulemaking initiative is
designed to improve the public's ability to get
involved in the rulemaking process. Visitors to the
website, http://www.regulations.gov, can view and
comment electronically on regulations proposed by
Federal departments and agencies. Starting with this
edition, the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda are
available electronically in searchable database format
at http://reginfo.gov. Additionally, beginning in early
2008, prior editions of the Regulatory Plan and Unified
Agenda will also be made available in searchable format
at http://reginfo.gov.
For new rulemakings and programs, OIRA has enhanced the
transparency of OMB's regulatory review process. OIRA's
website now enables the public to find which rules are
formally under review at OMB and which rules have
recently been cleared or have been returned to agencies
for reconsideration. OIRA has also increased the amount
of information available on its website. In addition to
information on meetings and correspondence, OIRA makes
available communications from the OIRA Administrator to
agencies, including ``prompt letters,'' ``return
letters,'' and ``post clearance letters,'' as well as
the Administrator's memorandum to the President's
Management Council (September 20, 2001) on presidential
review of agency rulemaking by OIRA.
For existing rulemakings, OIRA has initiated a modest
series of calls for reform nominations in 2001, 2002,
and 2004. In the draft 2001 annual Report to Congress
on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulation, OMB
asked for suggestions from the public about specific
regulations that should be modified in order to
increase net benefits to the public. We received
suggestions regarding 71 regulations, 23 of which OMB
designated as high priorities. After a similar call for
reforms in the 2002 draft Report, OMB received
recommendations on 316 distinct rules, guidance
documents, and paperwork requirements from over 1,700
commenters. Many of the nominations involved rules and
guidance documents that were recently issued or already
under review by the agencies, or involved independent
agency rules or guidance documents. OMB determined that
the remaining 122 rules and 34 guidance documents were
not under active review, and referred them to the
agencies for their evaluation as possible reforms.
Finally, in the 2004 draft Report, OMB requested public
nominations of promising regulatory reforms relevant to
the manufacturing sector. In particular, commenters
were asked to suggest specific reforms to rules,
guidance documents, or paperwork requirements that
would improve manufacturing regulation by reducing
unnecessary costs, increasing effectiveness, enhancing
competitiveness, reducing uncertainty, and increasing
flexibility. In response to the solicitation, OMB
received 189 distinct reform nominations from 41
commenters. Of these, Federal agencies and OMB have
determined that 76 of the 189 nominations have
potential merit and justify further action. For further
information, all of these Reports are available on
OIRA's website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
inforeg/regpol.html.
The Bush Administration has also moved aggressively to
establish basic quality performance goals for all
information disseminated by Federal agencies, including
information disseminated in support of proposed and
final regulations. The Federal agencies issued
guidelines on October 1, 2002 under the Information
Quality Act to ensure the ``quality, objectivity,
utility, and integrity'' of all information
disseminated by Federal agencies. Under these
guidelines, Federal agencies are taking appropriate
steps to incorporate the information quality
performance standards into agency information
dissemination practices, and developing pre-
dissemination review procedures to substantiate the
quality of information before it is disseminated. Under
the
[[Page 69745]]
agency information quality guidelines, ``affected
persons'' can request that the agencies correct
information if they believe that scientific, technical,
economic, statistical or other information disseminated
does not meet the agency and OMB standards. If the
requestor is dissatisfied with the initial agency
response to a correction request, an appeal opportunity
is provided by the agencies. With the implementation of
these guidelines, agencies are now aware that ensuring
the high quality of government information
disseminations is a high priority of the
Administration. Further information on OIRA's
activities implementing the Information Quality Act is
available on OIRA's website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html.
As part of its efforts to improve the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information
disseminated by the Federal agencies, on December 16,
2004, OMB issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review. This Bulletin establishes government-
wide guidance aimed at enhancing the practice of peer
review of government science documents. The Bulletin
describes minimum standards for when peer review is
required and how intensive the peer review should be
for different information. The Bulletin requires the
most rigorous form of peer review for highly
influential scientific assessments. Further information
on peer review is available on OIRA's website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf.
Recognizing the importance of agency interpretations of
existing regulations, OIRA recently changed its
policies concerning the development and review of
agency ``guidance documents.'' On January 18, 2007, the
President issued Executive Order 13422, ``Amendment to
Executive Order 12866 for Regulatory Planning and
Review.'' On that same day, OMB issued its Bulletin on
Agency Good Guidance Practices. The primary focus of
the Executive Order and the Good Guidance Bulletin is
to increase the quality, transparency, and
accountability of guidance documents.
The Good Guidance Bulletin, which OMB issued after
seeking public comment on a proposed version,
established policies and procedures for agencies to
apply in their development and issuance of
``significant'' and ``economically significant''
guidance documents. This Bulletin will ensure that
guidance documents are of high quality, developed with
appropriate agency review and public participation, and
readily accessible by the public.
The principal change to E.O. 12866 is a new process
that will provide an opportunity for interagency
coordination and review of significant guidance
documents prior to their issuance. E.O. 12866 was
amended in several other ways. For example, to ensure
appropriate accountability, the E.O. modifies the
procedures for an agency's adoption of its annual
Regulatory Plan and requires that an agency's
Regulatory Policy Officer be a Presidential appointee.
The E.O. also updates the Principles of Regulation in
E.O. 12866 to reflect the guidance-coordination
provisions in pre-existing OMB guidance.
In addition to increasing the level of public
involvement and transparency in its review of
regulations, the Bush Administration has sought to
enhance the role of analysis in the development of
effective regulations. On September 17, 2003, OMB
issued revised guidance to agencies on regulatory
analysis.\1\ Key features of the revised guidance
include more emphasis on cost-effectiveness, more
careful evaluation of qualitative and intangible
values, and a greater emphasis on considering the
uncertainty inherent in estimates of impact. OIRA was
very interested in updating the guidance in light of
these and other innovations now commonplace in the
research community.
------------
\1\ See Circular A-4, ``Regulatory Analysis,''
published as part of OMB's 2003 Report to Congress on
the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations. The
report is available on OMB's website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003_cost-ben_final_rpt.pdf
[[Page 69746]]
Further, in 2007 OMB and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) issued an updated memorandum
outlining principles for conducting analyses of health,
safety, and environmental risk. The memorandum
reaffirms risk analysis principles previously released
by OMB in 1995 and reinforces them with more recent
guidance from the scientific community, Congress, and
the Executive Branch. The 2007 Regulatory Plan
continues OIRA's effort to ensure coordination across
Federal agencies in pursuing analytically sound
regulatory policies.
The Administration's 2007 Regulatory Priorities
With regard to Federal regulation, the Bush
Administration's objective is quality, not quantity.
Those rules that are adopted promise to be more
effective, less intrusive, and more cost-effective in
achieving national objectives while demonstrating
greater durability in the face of political and legal
attack. The Regulatory Plan is integral to enhancing
the quality of Federal regulations, and OMB seeks to
ensure that the public is provided with the information
needed to understand and comment on the Federal
regulatory agenda. Accordingly, the 2007 Regulatory
Plan highlights the following themes:
Regulations that are particularly good
examples of the Administration's ``smart''
regulation agenda to streamline regulations
and reporting requirements, which is a key
part of the President's economic plan.
Regulations that are of particular
concern to small businesses.
Regulations that respond to public
nominations submitted to OMB in 2001 or
2002.
Regulations that address 2004
nominations for promising regulatory
reforms in the manufacturing sector.
Conclusion
Smarter regulatory policies, created through public
participation, transparency, and cooperation across
Federal agencies, are a key Administration objective.
The following department and agency plans provide
further information on regulatory priorities. All
agencies' plans are a reflection of the
Administration's Federal Regulatory Policy objectives,
which aim at implementing an effective and results-
oriented regulatory system.
[[Page 69747]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 National Organic Program: Add Standards for the Organic Certification of Wild Captured Aquatic 0581-AB97 Prerule Stage
Animals (TM-01-08)
2 Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Fish, Perishable Agricultural 0581-AC26 Final Rule Stage
Commodities, and Peanuts (LS-03-04)
3 Mandatory Reporting for Dairy Programs (DA-06-07) 0581-AC66 Final Rule Stage
4 Livestock Mandatory Reporting: Revise Reporting Regulation for Swine, Cattle, Lamb, and Boxed Beef 0581-AC67 Final Rule Stage
(LS-07-01)
5 Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals 0579-AC37 Prerule Stage
6 Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds 0579-AC02 Proposed Rule
Stage
7 Importation of Plants for Planting; Establishing a New Category of Plants for Planting Not 0579-AC03 Proposed Rule
Authorized for Importation Pending Risk Assessment Stage
8 Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering 0579-AC31 Proposed Rule
Stage
9 Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs 0584-AD59 Proposed Rule
Stage
10 Child and Adult Care Food Program: Improving Management and Program Integrity 0584-AC24 Final Rule Stage
11 FSP: Eligibility and Certification Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 0584-AD30 Final Rule Stage
12 Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171 0584-AD31 Final Rule Stage
13 Special Nutrition Programs: Fluid Milk Substitutions 0584-AD58 Final Rule Stage
14 Direct Certification of Children in Food Stamp Households and Certification of Homeless, Migrant, 0584-AD60 Final Rule Stage
and Runaway Children for Free Meals in the NSLP, SBP, and SMP
15 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): WIC Vendor Cost 0584-AD71 Final Rule Stage
Containment
16 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC 0584-AD77 Final Rule Stage
Food Packages
17 Egg Products Inspection Regulations 0583-AC58 Proposed Rule
Stage
18 Changes to Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Certain Food Products Containing Meat and Poultry 0583-AD28 Proposed Rule
Stage
19 Public Health-Based Poultry Slaughter Inspection 0583-AD32 Proposed Rule
Stage
20 Performance Standards for the Production of Processed Meat and Poultry Products; Control of 0583-AC46 Final Rule Stage
Listeria Monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Meat and Poultry Products
21 Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products 0583-AC60 Final Rule Stage
22 Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees During Meat or Poultry Product Recalls 0583-AD10 Final Rule Stage
23 Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Procedures 0596-AC49 Proposed Rule
Stage
24 Special Areas; State-Specific Inventoried Roadless Area Management: Idaho 0596-AC62 Proposed Rule
Stage
25 Special Areas; State-Specific Inventoried Roadless Area Management: Colorado 0596-AC74 Proposed Rule
Stage
26 Planning Subpart A - National Forest System Land Management Planning 0596-AC70 Final Rule Stage
27 Delivery Enhancement for Guaranteed Loans 0570-AA65 Final Rule Stage
28 Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees 0572-AC06 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 0648-AV48 Proposed Rule
Fishery Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006 Stage
30 Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in IUU Fishing or Bycatch of Protected 0648-AV51 Proposed Rule
Living Marine Resources Stage
[[Page 69748]]
31 Guidance for Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) To End Overfishing 0648-AV60 Proposed Rule
Stage
32 Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction 0648-AS36 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended 1840-AC93 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Electric and Gas Ranges and Ovens and Microwave 1904-AB49 Prerule Stage
Ovens, Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Commercial Clothes Washers
35 Energy Efficiency Standards for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps 1904-AB44 Proposed Rule
Stage
36 Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 1904-AB59 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 Control of Communicable Diseases, Interstate and Foreign Quarantine 0920-AA12 Final Rule Stage
38 Electronic Submission of Data From Studies Evaluating Human Drugs and Biologics 0910-AC52 Proposed Rule
Stage
39 Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biologics; Requirements for 0910-AF11 Proposed Rule
Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Stage
40 Label Requirement for Food That Has Been Refused Admission Into the United States 0910-AF61 Proposed Rule
Stage
41 Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements 0910-AF86 Proposed Rule
Stage
42 Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices 0910-AF88 Proposed Rule
Stage
43 Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients and 0910-AB88 Final Rule Stage
Dietary Supplements
44 Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs 0910-AC14 Final Rule Stage
45 Prior Notice of Imported Food Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and 0910-AC41 Final Rule Stage
Response Act of 2002
46 Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use 0910-AF14 Final Rule Stage
47 Standards for E-Prescribing Under Medicare Part D (CMS-0016-P) 0938-AO66 Proposed Rule
Stage
48 Application of Certain Appeals Provisions to the Medicare Prescription Drug Appeals Process (CMS- 0938-AO87 Proposed Rule
4127-P) Stage
49 Medicare Supplemental Policies (CMS-4084-P) 0938-AP10 Proposed Rule
Stage
50 Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center 0938-AP17 Proposed Rule
Payment System for CY 2009 (CMS-1404-P) Stage
[[Page 69749]]
51 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Ambulance Fee Schedule for CY 0938-AP18 Proposed Rule
2009 (CMS-1403-P) Stage
52 End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Conditions for Coverage (CMS-3818-F) 0938-AG82 Final Rule Stage
53 Hospice Care Conditions of Participation (CMS-3844-F) 0938-AH27 Final Rule Stage
54 Health Coverage Portability: Tolling Certain Time Periods and Interactions With Family and Medical 0938-AL88 Final Rule Stage
Leave Act (CMS-2158-F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US- 1601-AA34 Proposed Rule
VISIT); Biometric Requirements for Exit at Air and Sea Ports Stage
56 Minimum Standards for Driver's Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable to Federal Agencies for 1601-AA37 Final Rule Stage
Official Purposes
57 Reduction of the Number of Acceptable Documents and Other Changes to Employment Verification 1615-AA01 Proposed Rule
Requirements Stage
58 Special Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Religious Workers 1615-AA16 Final Rule Stage
59 Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status 1615-AA60 Final Rule Stage
60 Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2A Nonimmigrants 1615-AB65 Final Rule Stage
61 Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, 1625-AA16 Proposed Rule
Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978 (USCG-2004-17914) Stage
62 Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels (USCG-2003-16158) 1625-AA77 Proposed Rule
Stage
63 Navigation Equipment; SOLAS Chapter V Amendments and Electronic Chart System (USCG-2004-19588) 1625-AA91 Proposed Rule
Stage
64 Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System (USCG- 1625-AA99 Proposed Rule
2005-21869) Stage
65 Increasing Passenger Weight Standard for Passenger Vessels (USCG 2005-22732) 1625-AB20 Proposed Rule
Stage
66 Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements (USCG-2007-28915) 1625-AB21 Proposed Rule
Stage
67 Outer Continental Shelf Activities (USCG-1998-3868) 1625-AA18 Final Rule Stage
68 Advance Information on Private Aircraft Arriving and Departing the United States 1651-AA41 Proposed Rule
Stage
69 Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements 1651-AA70 Proposed Rule
Stage
70 Documents Required for Travelers Entering the United States at Sea and Land Ports-of-Entry From 1651-AA69 Final Rule Stage
Within the Western Hemisphere
71 Aircraft Repair Station Security 1652-AA38 Proposed Rule
Stage
72 Secure Flight Program 1652-AA45 Proposed Rule
Stage
73 Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator 1652-AA53 Proposed Rule
Security Program Stage
74 Public Transportation--Security Plan 1652-AA56 Proposed Rule
Stage
75 Railroads-Security Training of Employees 1652-AA57 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 69750]]
76 Railroads--Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan 1652-AA58 Proposed Rule
Stage
77 Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA59 Proposed Rule
Stage
78 Over-the-Road Buses--Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan 1652-AA60 Proposed Rule
Stage
79 Security Threat Assessments of Certain Transportation Personnel 1652-AA61 Proposed Rule
Stage
80 Rail Transportation Security 1652-AA51 Final Rule Stage
81 Public Transportation-Security Training of Employees 1652-AA55 Final Rule Stage
82 Special Community Disaster Loans Program 1660-AA44 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83 HUD's Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Housing Goals (FR-4960) 2501-AD12 Proposed Rule
Stage
84 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA); To Simplify and Improve the Process of Obtaining 2502-AI61 Proposed Rule
Mortgages and Reduce Consumer Costs (FR-5180) Stage
85 Capital Fund Program (FR-4880) 2577-AC50 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 Placement of Excess Spoil 1029-AC04 Proposed Rule
Stage
87 Oil Shale Leasing and Operations 1004-AD90 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities 1190-AA44 Proposed Rule
Stage
89 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services 1190-AA46 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; Conform to the Supreme Court's Ragsdale Decision 1215-AB35 Proposed Rule
Stage
91 Senior Community Service Employment Program 1205-AB48 Proposed Rule
Stage
92 YouthBuild Program 1205-AB49 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 69751]]
93 Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of Regulations 1205-AB50 Proposed Rule
Stage
94 Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment 1205-AB51 Proposed Rule
and Wages Stage
95 Senior Community Service Employment Program; Performance Accountability 1205-AB47 Final Rule Stage
96 Fee and Expense Disclosures to Participants in Individual Account Plans 1210-AB07 Proposed Rule
Stage
97 Amendment of Standards Applicable to General Statutory Exemption for Services 1210-AB08 Proposed Rule
Stage
98 Prohibited Transaction Exemption for Provision of Investment Advice to Participants in Individual 1210-AB13 Proposed Rule
Account Plans Stage
99 Periodic Pension Benefit Statements 1210-AB20 Proposed Rule
Stage
100 Regulations Implementing the Health Care Access, Portability, and Renewability Provisions of the 1210-AA54 Final Rule Stage
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
101 Section 404 Regulation--Default Investment Alternatives Under Participant Directed Individual 1210-AB10 Final Rule Stage
Account Plans
102 Continuous Personal Dust Monitors 1219-AB48 Prerule Stage
103 Diesel Particulate Matter: Conversion Factor From Total Carbon to Elemental Carbon 1219-AB55 Proposed Rule
Stage
104 Asbestos Exposure Limit 1219-AB24 Final Rule Stage
105 Sealing of Abandoned Areas 1219-AB52 Final Rule Stage
106 Mine Rescue Teams 1219-AB53 Final Rule Stage
107 Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica 1218-AB70 Prerule Stage
108 Cranes and Derricks 1218-AC01 Proposed Rule
Stage
109 Hazard Communication 1218-AC20 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel 2105-AC97 Final Rule Stage
111 Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipage Mandate To Support Air Traffic Control 2120-AI92 Proposed Rule
Service Stage
112 Pilot Age Limit 2120-AJ01 Proposed Rule
Stage
113 Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread Fatigue Damage) 2120-AI05 Final Rule Stage
114 Transport Airplane Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction 2120-AI23 Final Rule Stage
115 National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners 2126-AA97 Proposed Rule
Stage
116 Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards 2126-AB02 Proposed Rule
Stage
117 Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the Commercial Driver's License 2126-AA10 Final Rule Stage
118 New Entrant Safety Assurance Process 2126-AA59 Final Rule Stage
119 Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal 2126-AA86 Final Rule Stage
Equipment
120 Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance 2126-AA89 Final Rule Stage
121 Roof Crush Resistance 2127-AG51 Proposed Rule
Stage
122 Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Model Years 2012 and Beyond 2127-AK08 Proposed Rule
Stage
123 Reduced Stopping Distance Requirements for Truck Tractors 2127-AJ37 Final Rule Stage
124 Regulatory Relief for Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake System Implementation 2130-AB84 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 69752]]
125 Major Capital Investment Projects--New/Small Starts 2132-AA81 Proposed Rule
Stage
126 Pipeline Safety: Distribution Integrity Management 2137-AE15 Proposed Rule
Stage
127 Hazardous Materials: Enhancing Rail Transportation Safety and Security for Hazardous Materials 2137-AE02 Final Rule Stage
Shipments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
128 Implementation of a Revised Basel Capital Accord (Basel II) 1557-AC91 Final Rule Stage
129 Implementation of a Revised Basel Capital Accord (Basel II) 1550-AB56 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead 2060-AN83 Prerule Stage
131 Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP); Implementing the Screening and Testing Phase 2070-AD61 Prerule Stage
132 Nanoscale Materials Under TSCA 2070-AJ30 Prerule Stage
133 Implementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit Programs 2060-AN00 Proposed Rule
Stage
134 Revisions to the Definition of Potential to Emit (PTE) 2060-AN65 Proposed Rule
Stage
135 Risk and Technology Review Phase II Group 2 2060-AN85 Proposed Rule
Stage
136 Rulemaking To Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Motor Vehicles 2060-AO56 Proposed Rule
Stage
137 Test Rule; Testing of Certain High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals 2070-AD16 Proposed Rule
Stage
138 Pesticides; Data Requirements for Antimicrobials 2070-AD30 Proposed Rule
Stage
139 Pesticides; Competency Standards for Occupational Users 2070-AJ20 Proposed Rule
Stage
140 Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions 2070-AJ22 Proposed Rule
Stage
141 Pesticides; Data Requirements for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) 2070-AJ27 Proposed Rule
Stage
142 Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule 2050-AG16 Proposed Rule
Stage
143 Revisions to Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Standards and Amendments to Recycling 2050-AG34 Proposed Rule
Requirements for Spent Petroleum Refining Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalysts Stage
144 NPDES Vessel Vacatur 2040-AE93 Proposed Rule
Stage
145 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): 2060-AL75 Final Rule Stage
Debottlenecking, Aggregation and Project Netting
146 Control of Emissions from New Locomotives and New Marine Diesel Engines Less Than 30 Liters per 2060-AM06 Final Rule Stage
Cylinder
147 Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment 2060-AM34 Final Rule Stage
148 Amendment of the Standards for Radioactive Waste Disposal in Yucca Mountain, Nevada 2060-AN15 Final Rule Stage
149 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone 2060-AN24 Final Rule Stage
150 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Emission Increases for 2060-AN28 Final Rule Stage
Electric Generating Units
[[Page 69753]]
151 Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5 2060-AN86 Final Rule Stage
152 Lead-Based Paint; Amendments for Renovation, Repair and Painting 2070-AC83 Final Rule Stage
153 Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary Materials From the Petroleum Refining Industry 2050-AE78 Final Rule Stage
Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas
154 Expanding the Comparable Fuels Exclusion Under RCRA 2050-AG24 Final Rule Stage
155 Definition of Solid Wastes Revisions 2050-AG31 Final Rule Stage
156 NPDES Permit Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges From Publicly Owned Treatment Work 2040-AD87 Final Rule Stage
Treatment Plants Serving Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems Policy
157 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Rule 2040-AE80 Final Rule Stage
158 Water Transfers Rule 2040-AE86 Final Rule Stage
159 Implementation Guidance for Mercury Water Quality Criteria 2040-AE87 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160 Coordination of Retiree Health Benefits With Medicare and State Health Benefits 3046-AA72 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
161 Federal Records Management 3095-AB16 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 Small Business Lending Company and Lender Oversight Regulations 3245-AE14 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
163 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune (HIV) System Disorders 0960-AG71 Prerule Stage
164 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886P) 0960-AF69 Proposed Rule
Stage
165 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss (2862P) 0960-AG20 Proposed Rule
Stage
166 Additional Insured Status Requirements for Certain Alien Workers (2882P) 0960-AG22 Proposed Rule
Stage
167 Amendments to the Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Council, and Decision Review Board Appeals 0960-AG52 Proposed Rule
Levels (3401P) Stage
168 Representation of Claimants (3396P) 0960-AG56 Proposed Rule
Stage
169 Revised Medical Criteria for Malignant Neoplastic Diseases (3429P) 0960-AG57 Proposed Rule
Stage
170 Amendments and Clarifications to the Adjudicatory Process (3431P) 0960-AG58 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 69754]]
171 Requirement That Professional Representatives File Requests for Reconsideration and Administrative 0960-AG59 Proposed Rule
Law Judge Hearings Via the Internet (3432P) Stage
172 Amendments to Hearings Level Adjudication (3434P) 0960-AG61 Proposed Rule
Stage
173 Updates to Medical-Vocational Guidelines 0960-AG68 Proposed Rule
Stage
174 Clarify Applicability of Res Judicata 0960-AG69 Proposed Rule
Stage
175 Eliminate Re-interviewing of Representative Payees 0960-AG70 Proposed Rule
Stage
176 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune System Disorders (804F) 0960-AF33 Final Rule Stage
177 Amendments to the Ticket To Work and Self-Sufficiency Program (967F) 0960-AF89 Final Rule Stage
178 Privacy and Disclosure of Official Records and Information; Availability of Information and Records 0960-AG14 Final Rule Stage
to the Public (2562F)
179 Consultative Examination--Annual Onsite Review of Medical Examiners (3338F) 0960-AG41 Final Rule Stage
180 Suspension of New Claims to the Federal Reviewing Official Review Level (3394F) 0960-AG53 Final Rule Stage
181 Nonpayment of Benefits to Fugitive Felons and Probation or Parole Violators (2222F) 0960-AG55 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
182 Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture 3041-AB35 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
183 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 3084-AA94 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
184 Technical Standards for Gaming Machines and Gaming Systems 3141-AA29 Proposed Rule
Stage
185 Game Classification Standards 3141-AA31 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
186 System of Rate Regulation for Market Dominant Products 3211-AA02 Final Rule Stage
187 Competitive Products 3211-AA03 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 07-05122 Filed 12-07-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S
[[Page 69755]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulations cover a broad range of issues. Within the rulemaking
process is the department-wide effort to reduce burden on participants
and program administrators alike by focusing on improving program
outcomes, and particularly on achieving the performance measures
specified in the USDA and agency Strategic Plans. Significant focus is
being placed on efficiencies that can be achieved through eGov
activities, the migration to efficient electronic services and
capabilities, and the implementation of focused, efficient information
collections necessary to support effective program management.
Important areas of activity include the following:
Legislation covering major farm, trade, conservation, rural
development, nutrition assistance and other programs
(``Farm Bill'') expires at the end of fiscal year 2007.
Regulations will need to be promulgated to implement any
new or modified programs reauthorized included in the new
Farm Bill that is now under development. It is anticipated
that a number of high priority regulations will be
developed during FY 2008 to implement the Farm Bill, but
additional details are not available for inclusion in this
plan.
USDA will continue regulatory work to protect the health and
value of U.S. agricultural and natural resources while
facilitating trade flows. This includes amending
regulations related to the importation of fruits and
vegetables, nursery products, and animals and animal
products, and continuing work related to regulation of
plant and animal biotechnologies. In addition, USDA will
propose specific standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of birds under the Animal
Welfare Act.
In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to develop
science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat,
poultry, and egg products in the least burdensome and most
cost-effective manner. Regulations will be revised to
address emerging food safety challenges, streamlined to
remove excessively prescriptive regulations, and updated to
be made consistent with hazard analysis and critical
control point principles. To assist small entities to
comply with food safety requirements, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service will continue to collaborate with other
USDA agencies and State partners in the enhanced small
business outreach program.
As changes are made for the nutrition assistance programs,
USDA will work to foster actions that will help improve
diets, and particularly to prevent and reduce overweight
and obesity. In 2008, FNS will continue to promote
nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing
participant and vendor fraud.
USDA has priority projects in the Rural Development mission
area to strengthen the regulations for its broadband access
program to better focus on areas without such access, and
to consolidate and streamline its regulations relating to
the delivery of its guaranteed loan programs.
USDA will continue to promote economic opportunities for
agriculture and rural communities through its BioPreferred
Program (formerly the Federal Biobased Product Preferred
Procurement Program). USDA will continue to designate
groups of biobased products to receive procurement
preference from Federal agencies and contractors. In
addition, USDA intends to publish rules establishing the
Voluntary Labeling Program for biobased products.
Reducing Paperwork Burden on Customers
USDA has made substantial progress in implementing the goal of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to reduce the burden of information
collection on the public. To meet the requirements of the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the E-Government Act, agencies
across USDA are providing electronic alternatives to their
traditionally paper-based customer transactions. As a result, producers
increasingly have the option to electronically file forms and all other
documentation online. To facilitate the expansion of electronic
government, USDA implemented an electronic authentication capability
that allows customers to ``sign-on'' once and conduct business with all
USDA agencies. Supporting these efforts are ongoing analyses to
identify and eliminate redundant data collections and streamline
collection instructions. The end result of implementing these
initiatives is better service to our customers enabling them to choose
when and where to conduct business with USDA.
The Role of Regulations
The programs of USDA are diverse and far reaching, as are the
regulations that attend their delivery. Regulations codify how USDA
will conduct its business, including the specifics of access to, and
eligibility for, USDA programs. Regulations also specify the
responsibilities of State and local governments, private industry,
businesses, and individuals that are necessary to comply with their
provisions.
The diversity in purpose and outreach of USDA programs contributes
significantly to USDA being near the top of the list of departments
that produce the largest number of regulations annually. These
regulations range from nutrition standards for the school lunch
program, to natural resource and environmental measures governing
national forest usage and soil conservation, to emergency producer
assistance as a result of natural disasters, to regulations protecting
American agribusiness (a major dollar value contributor to exports)
from the ravages of domestic or foreign plant or animal pestilence, and
they extend from farm to supermarket to ensure the safety, quality, and
availability of the Nation's food supply.
Many regulations function in a dynamic environment, which requires
their periodic modification. The factors determining various
entitlement, eligibility, and administrative criteria often change from
year to year. Therefore, many significant regulations must be revised
annually to reflect changes in economic and market benchmarks.
Almost all legislation that affects USDA programs has accompanying
regulatory needs, often with a significant impact resulting in the
modification, addition, or deletion of many programs. In 2008, USDA
anticipates implementing a new Farm Bill through regulations on major
programs covering domestic commodity support, crop insurance,
conservation, export and foreign food assistance, bioenergy, rural
development, agricultural research, and food and nutrition programs.
Major Regulatory Priorities
This document represents summary information on prospective significant
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. The following
agencies are represented in this regulatory plan,
[[Page 69756]]
along with a summary of their mission and key regulatory priorities for
2008:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) increases food security
and reduces hunger in partnership with cooperating organizations by
providing children and low-income people access to food, a healthful
diet, and nutrition education in a manner that supports American
agriculture and inspires public confidence.
Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's
2007 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal 5, ``Improve the
Nation's Nutrition and Health,'' and its three related objectives:
Improve Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents FNS's
efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to program benefits
(Food Stamps, WIC food vouchers and nutrition services, school meals,
commodities) and distributing State administrative funds to support
program operations. To advance this objective, FNS plans to finalize
rules implementing provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) to simplify program administration, support
work, and improve access to benefits in the Food Stamp Program (FSP).
The Agency will also issue rules implementing provisions of the Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265) to
establish automatic eligibility for homeless children for school meals.
Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective
represents FNS's efforts to improve nutrition knowledge and behavior
through nutrition education and breastfeeding promotion, and to ensure
that program benefits meet the appropriate nutrition standards to
effectively improve nutrition for program participants. In support of
this objective, FNS plans to propose regulations updating nutrition
standards in the school meals programs, and finalize a rule revising
requirements that allow schools to substitute nutritionally-equivalent
non-dairy beverages for fluid milk at the request of a recipient's
parent in addition to medical care providers. FNS will also publish an
interim final rule making improvements in food packages in the WIC
program to reflect current dietary guidance, based on recommendations
made by an Institute of Medicine expert panel.
Improve Nutrition Assistance Program Management and Customer Service.
This objective represents FNS's ongoing commitment to maximize the
accuracy of benefits issued, maximize the efficiency and effectiveness
of program operations, and minimize participant and vendor fraud. In
support of this objective, FNS plans to finalize rules in the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) to improve
program management and prevent vendor fraud, as well as finalize rules
in the FSP to improve the Quality Control process.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible
for ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products in commerce are
wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-based
regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products are
wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS continues to review
its existing authorities and regulations to streamline excessively
prescriptive regulations, to revise or remove regulations that are
inconsistent with the Agency's hazard analysis and critical control
point regulations, and to ensure that it can address emerging food
safety challenges. FSIS is also working with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to better delineate the two agencies'
jurisdictions over various food products.
In February 2001, FSIS proposed a rule to establish food safety
performance standards for all processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and
poultry products and for partially heat-treated meat and poultry
products that are not ready-to-eat. The proposal also contained
provisions addressing post-lethality contamination of RTE products with
Listeria monocytogenes. In June 2003, FSIS published an interim final
rule requiring establishments to prevent Listeria monocytogenes
contamination of RTE products. The Agency is evaluating the
effectiveness of this interim final rule, which in 2004 was the subject
of a regulatory reform nomination to OMB. FSIS has carefully reviewed
its economic analysis of the interim final rule in response to this
recommendation and is planning to adjust provisions of the rule to
reduce the information collection burden on small businesses. FSIS also
is planning further action with respect to other elements of the 2001
proposal, based on quantitative risk assessments of target pathogens in
processed products.
FSIS plans to amend the poultry products inspection regulations to
provide for a new inspection system for young poultry slaughter
establishments that would facilitate public health-based inspection.
Although this new system would be available initially only to young
chicken slaughter, FSIS anticipates that this proposed rule would
provide the framework for action to provide public health-based
inspection in all establishments that slaughter amenable poultry
species. This proposed rule will be designed based on some data from
the HACCP-based Inspection Models (HIMP) pilot and will reflect FSIS'
and establishments' experience under HIMP, which began in 1997. The
proposed rule will also reflect information FSIS has gathered at public
meetings on risk-based inspection for processing and slaughter this
past year.
In the same regulations that propose to establish a public-health based
poultry products inspection system, FSIS intends to replace, with a
performance standard, the requirement for ready-to-cook poultry
products to be chilled to 40 [deg]F or below within certain time limits
according to the weight of the dressed carcasses. Under the performance
standard, poultry establishments would have to carry out slaughtering,
dressing, and chilling operations in a manner that ensures no
significant growth of pathogens, as demonstrated by control of the
pathogens or indicator organisms. The existing time/temperature
chilling regulations would remain available for use by establishments
as a ``safe harbor'' for compliance with the new standard.
FSIS proposed on March 7, 2006, to amend the Federal meat and poultry
product inspection regulations to provide that the Agency would make
available to individual consumers lists of the retail consignees of
meat and poultry products that a federally inspected meat or poultry
products establishment has voluntarily recalled. FSIS believes this
action will improve public health by making available more information
on where recalled products were sold. With this information, consumers
will be more likely to identify and dispose of the products or return
them to the stores that sold them.
FSIS is collaborating with the FDA in an effort to rationalize the
division of food protection responsibilities between the two agencies
and eliminate
[[Page 69757]]
confusion over which agency has jurisdiction over which kinds of
products. The agencies are taking an approach that involves considering
how the meat or poultry ingredients contribute to the characteristics
and basic identity of food products. Thus, FSIS plans to propose
amending its regulations to exclude from its jurisdiction cheese and
cheese products prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry;
breads, rolls, and buns prepared with less than 50 percent meat or
poultry; dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and reaction/process
flavors; pizza with meat or poultry; and salad dressings prepared with
less than 50 percent meat or poultry from the requirements. FSIS also
plans to clarify that bagel dogs, natural casings, and close-faced meat
or poultry sandwiches are subject to the requirements of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
FSIS also is planning to propose requirements for federally inspected
egg product plants to develop and implement HACCP systems and
sanitation standard operating procedures. The Agency will be proposing
pathogen reduction performance standards for egg products. Further, the
Agency will be proposing to remove requirements for FSIS approval of
egg-product plant drawings, specifications, and equipment before their
use, and to end the system for pre-marketing approval of labeling for
egg products.
Small business implications. The great majority of businesses regulated
by FSIS are small businesses. With the possible exception of the
planned poultry inspection system regulations, the regulations listed
above substantially affect small businesses. FSIS recognizes the
difficulties faced by many small and very small establishments in
complying with necessary, science-based food-safety or other consumer
protection requirements and in assuming the associated technical and
financial burdens. FSIS attempts to reduce the burdens of its
regulations on small business by providing alternative dates of
compliance, furnishing detailed compliance guidance material, and
conducting outreach programs to small and very small establishments.
FSIS conducts a small business outreach program that provides critical
training, access to food safety experts, and information resources
(such as compliance guidance and questions and answers on various
topics) in forms that are uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent.
The Agency collaborates in this effort with other USDA agencies and
cooperating State partners. For example, FSIS makes plant owners and
operators aware of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural
Business and Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their
facilities. FSIS employees meet proactively with small and very small
plant operators to learn more about their specific needs and provide
joint training sessions for small and very small plants and FSIS employees.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect the health and value of
American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS conducts programs to
prevent the introduction of exotic pests and diseases into the United
States and conducts surveillance, monitoring, control, and eradication
programs for pests and diseases in this country. These activities
enhance agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contribute to
the national economy and the public health. APHIS also conducts
programs to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
Priorities: APHIS is continuing work that will result in a revision of
its regulations concerning the introduction of organisms and products
altered or produced through genetic engineering. This work consists of
two parts. The first is to amend the existing plant-related regulations
to reflect new consolidated authorities under the Plant Protection Act.
The second is to begin with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to
consider regulatory approaches for transgenic animals. These regulatory
changes are needed to ensure that USDA regulations for plant and animal
health keep pace with advances in technology. APHIS also plans to
propose changes to the regulations for importing nursery stock that
will enhance our ability to protect plant health. The Agency also plans
to propose changes to its regulations concerning bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) to provide a more comprehensive framework for the
importation of certain animals and products. With regard to animal
welfare, APHIS plans to propose standards for the humane handling,
care, treatment, and transportation of birds covered under the Animal
Welfare Act.
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides marketing
services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers,
exporters, and consumers of food products. The AMS also manages the
Government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading, maintains
food quality standards, and supervises the Federal research and
promotion programs.
Priorities: AMS would continue work in several areas. The July 3, 2007,
interim final rule establishing a Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting
Program requires dairy product manufacturers to report to the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) information on price, quantity,
and moisture content of products sold. Information must also be
reported about the amount of dairy product stored, per statute. AMS has
implemented a program to audit information reported to NASS. Provisions
of the interim final rule will expire 12 months from the date of
publication unless further regulatory action is taken; AMS intends to
finalize the rule. Under the August 8, 2007, proposed rule to implement
the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, AMS would collect information
about the marketing of cattle, swine, lambs, and related products. AMS
intends to finalize the rule.
By statute, country of origin labeling requirements will apply to all
covered commodities on September 30, 2008. Covered commodities include
beef, lamb and pork, fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural
commodities, and peanuts. The intent of this law is to provide
consumers with additional information on which to base their purchasing
decisions. AMS intends to finalize rulemaking to meet the statutory
deadline.
AMS Program Rulemaking Pages: All of AMS's rules, published in the
Federal Register, are available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. This site also includes commenting instructions
and addresses, links to news releases and background material, and
comments received on various rules.
Rural Development
Mission: Rural Development's mission is to support increased economic
opportunities and improved quality of life in rural America. This
support is provided through loan, grant and technical assistance for
rural housing,
[[Page 69758]]
community facilities, business and industry, and electric and
telecommunication facilities.
Priorities: Current priorities include strengthening the regulations
for the rural broadband access program to address infrastructure and
services deployment issues. Another priority is to consolidate and
streamline regulations relating to enhancing delivery of loan
guarantees through a unified regulation on common provisions.
Forest Service
Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health,
productivity, and diversity of the Nation's forests and rangelands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. This includes
protecting and managing National Forest System lands; providing
technical and financial assistance to States, communities, and private
forest landowners; and developing and providing scientific and
technical assistance and scientific exchanges in support of
international forest and range conservation.
Priorities: The Forest Service's priorities for fall 2007 are to
publish a proposed regulation to a proposed rule for National Forest
System land management planning, and then adopting a final rule at 36
CFR 219, subpart A. This rulemaking is the result of a U.S. district
court order dated March 30, 2007, which enjoined the United States
Department of Agriculture from implementation and utilization of the
land management planning rule published in 2005 (70 FR1023) until it
complies with the court's order regarding the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative
Procedure Act (Citizens for Better Forestry et al. v. USDA, C.A. C05-
1144 (N. D. Cal.)).
On January 12, 2001, the Department of Agriculture promulgated the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) to provide for the conservation
and management of approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried
roadless areas within the National Forest System under the principles
of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. On July 14, 2003, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming found the 2001 roadless
rule to be unlawful and ordered that the rule be permanently enjoined.
The State of Idaho and the State of Colorado have petitioned the
Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. -553(e) and 7 C.F.R. -1.28 for state-
specific rules to replace this national rule in their respective
States.
The Forest Service is proposing to move existing agency NEPA
procedures, required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
codified at 40 CFR 1507.3, from the internal Forest Service
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 to the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 36 CFR part 220. New procedures would
be added and existing procedures would be revised where clarity is
needed to incorporate CEQ guidance and align agency NEPA procedures
with agency decision processes.
Office of the Chief Economist
Mission: The mission of the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) is to
advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the economic implications of
USDA policies, programs, and proposed legislation; to ensure the public
has consistent, objective, and reliable agricultural forecasts; and to
promote effective and efficient rules governing USDA programs.
Priorities: The regulatory priority for OCE is to continue implementing
the BioPreferred Program (formerly the Federal Biobased Product
Preferred Procurement Program) authorized under section 9002 of the
2002 Farm Bill (Public Law 107-171). Included in this priority are
proposed and final regulations designating items for preferred Federal
procurement. These regulations will assist in the expansion of market
opportunities for manufacturers of biobased products, resulting in
economic opportunities for American agricultural producers and rural
communities. These efforts support USDA's strategic goal ``To enhance
the competitiveness and sustainability of rural and farm economies.''
In addition, OCE will look to begin implementation of the BioPreferred
labeling program. Once implemented, this program will allow biobased
manufacturers to receive a label to be used in the commercial market to
distinguish their products as biobased.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Per the amendments to E.O. 12866, we are providing an aggregate
estimate of costs and benefits of final regulations included in the
Regulatory Plan that will be made effective in calendar year 2008.
However, any aggregate estimate of total costs and benefits must be
highly qualified. Problems with aggregation arise due to differing
baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and the type
of regulatory costs and benefits considered. In addition, aggregation
omits benefits and costs that cannot be reliably quantified, such as
improved health resulting from increased access to more nutritious
foods and higher levels of food safety and increased quality of life
derived from investments in rural infrastructure. Some benefits and
costs associated with rules listed in the Regulatory Plan cannot
currently be quantified as the rules are still being formulated. With
these caveats noted, USDA anticipates aggregate annual monetized
benefits to range from $1.1 billion to $1.5 billion. Aggregate annual
monetized costs are anticipated to be approximately $0.5 billion.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: ADD STANDARDS FOR THE ORGANIC
CERTIFICATION OF WILD CAPTURED AQUATIC ANIMALS (TM-01-08)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 6501 through 6522
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 205
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is revising regulations
pertaining to labeling of agricultural products as organically produced
and handled (7 CFR part 205). The term ``aquatic animal'' will be
incorporated in the definition of livestock to establish production and
handling standards for operations that capture aquatic animals from the
wild. Production standards for operations producing aquatic animals
will incorporate requirements for livestock origin, feed ration, health
care, living conditions, and recordkeeping. Handling standards for such
operations will address prevention of commingling of organically
produced commodities and prevention of contact between organically
produced and prohibited substances.
Statement of Need:
This amendment to the National Organic Program is intended to
[[Page 69759]]
facilitate interstate commerce and marketing of fresh and processed
aquatic animals that are organically produced and to assure consumers
that such products meet consistent, uniform standards. Also, this
amendment will establish national standards for the production and
handling of organically produced aquatic animals and products,
including a national list of substances approved and prohibited for use
in organic production and handling.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This amendment is proposed under the Organic Foods Production Act of
1990 (OFPA). OFPA includes fish for food in its definition of
livestock. Additionally, on April 12, 2003, Congress amended OFPA
section 2107 (7 U.S.C. 6506) to authorize certification of wild seafood.
Alternatives:
AMS is fulfilling a congressional mandate to proceed with rulemaking
for the establishment of national standards for the organic production
and handling of aquatic animals.
Other options are to do nothing or to propose regulations prohibiting
the labeling of aquatic animals as organically produced. Neither
alternative is viable inasmuch as Congress has amended OFPA to
authorize certification of wild seafood.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Potential benefits to consumers include more information on organic
aquatic animals and protection from false and misleading organic
claims. This proposal will address the problem of existing certifying
agents using different standards. This proposal will also resolve the
issue of whether aquatic animals can be labeled as organically produced.
The costs of this proposed regulation are the direct costs to comply
with the specific standards. USDA-accredited certifying agents
potentially will incur additional costs of accreditation should they
opt to certify producers and handlers of aquatic animals. New
applicants for accreditation to certify producers and handlers of
aquatic animals under the National Organic Program will incur fees for
accreditation. Producers and handlers of organically produced and
handled aquatic animals will incur costs for certification levied by
USDA-accredited certifying agents. USDA would not levy any fees on the
certified operations. Producers and handlers will face numerous
provisions that will regulate their production and handling methods.
Retailers would not be directly regulated but would be subject to the
same requirements for organic animals and products as they are
currently for other foods under the NOP. AMS believes this action will
have a minimal impact on retailers. Certified handlers will have to
comply with requirements regarding the approved use of labels. The
USDA, States operating State programs, and certifying agents will incur
costs for enforcement of these new organic standards. Certifying
agents, producers, and handlers would incur costs for reporting and
recordkeeping. Certifying agents will be required to file reports and
documents with the USDA and to maintain records regarding their
accreditation and the certification of their clients. Certified
operations will be required to develop and annually update an organic
system plan and to maintain records regarding their certification and
the administration of their operation.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 08/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Agency Contact:
Mark A. Bradley
Associate Deputy Administrator, National Organic Program
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
Room 4008, South Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-3252
Fax: 202 205-7808
Email: mark.bradley@usda.gov
RIN: 0581-AB97
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--AMS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
2. MANDATORY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF BEEF, PORK, LAMB, FISH,
PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, AND PEANUTS (LS-03-04)
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
7 USC 1621 through 1627, Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 60
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, September 30, 2008.
Abstract:
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L.
107-171) and the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (2002
Appropriations) (Pub. L. 107-206) amended the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (Act) (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) to require retailers to
notify their customers of the country of origin of covered commodities
beginning September 30, 2004. Covered commodities include muscle cuts
of beef (including veal), lamb, and pork; ground beef, ground lamb, and
ground pork; farm-raised fish and shellfish; wild fish and shellfish;
perishable agricultural commodities; and peanuts. The FY 2004
Consolidated Appropriations bill (2004 Appropriations) (Pub. L. 108-
199) delayed implementation of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling
(COOL) for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and
shellfish until September 30, 2006. The FY 2006 Agriculture
Appropriations Bill further delayed the implementation date for other
covered commodities until September 30, 2008.
Statement of Need:
Under current Federal laws and regulations, country of origin labeling
is not universally required for the covered commodities. In particular,
labeling of U.S. origin is not mandatory, and labeling of imported
products at the consumer level is required only in certain
circumstances. This intent of the law is to provide consumers with
additional information
[[Page 69760]]
on which to base their purchasing decisions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 10816 of Public Law 107-171 amended the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 to require retailers to inform consumers of the country of
origin for covered commodities beginning September 30, 2004. The 2004
Appropriations delayed the implementation of mandatory COOL for all
covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish
until September 30, 2006. The FY 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill
further delayed the implementation date for the other covered
commodities until September 30, 2008.
Alternatives:
The October 30, 2004, proposed rule specifically invited comment on
several alternatives including alternative definitions for ``processed
food item,'' alternative labeling of mixed origin, and alternatives to
using ``slaughtered'' on the label. In addition, the October 5, 2004,
interim final rule contained an impact analysis which included an
analysis of alternative approaches. The interim final rule also invited
comment on several key issues including the definition of a processed
food item.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
USDA has examined the economic impact of the rule as required by
Executive Order 12866. The estimated benefits associated with this rule
are likely to be small. The estimated 1st-year incremental cost for
directly affected firms are estimated at $89 million for fish and
shellfish only. The estimated cost to the U.S. economy in terms of
reduced purchasing power resulting from a loss in productivity after a
10-year period of adjustment are estimated at $6.2 million. A final
cost benefit assessment for the other covered commodities will be
completed in the final rule.
Risks:
AMS has not identified any risks at this time.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 10/30/03 68 FR 61944
NPRM Comment Period End 12/29/03
Interim Final Rule 10/05/04 69 FR 59708
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/03/05
Interim Final Rule
Effective 04/04/05
Comment Period Extended 11/27/06 71 FR 68431
Comment Period End 02/26/07
Comment Period Extended 06/20/07 72 FR 33851
Comment Period End 08/20/07
Final Action 09/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Additional Information:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an interim final rule with
request for comments for the labeling of fish and shellfish covered
commodities that became effective on April 4, 2005. A final regulatory
action for all covered commodities will be issued by September 30,
2008.
Agency Contact:
Martin O'Connor
Chief
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
14th & Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-6456
Phone: 202 720-4486
Fax: 202 690-4119
Email: cool@usda.gov
RIN: 0581-AC26
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--AMS
3. MANDATORY REPORTING FOR DAIRY PROGRAMS (DA-06-07)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 106-532
CFR Citation:
7 USC 1621 through 1677
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Agricultural Marketing Service is proposing to establish a Dairy
Product Mandatory Reporting Program. The program would: (1) Require
persons engaged in manufacturing dairy products to provide the
Department of Agriculture certain information including price,
quantity, and moisture content of dairy products sold by the
manufacturer and (2) require manufacturers and other persons storing
dairy products to report to USDA information on the quantity of dairy
products stored.
Statement of Need:
The Department and industry must be confident in the accuracy of dairy
product prices and inventories that are reported to the Department.
This is especially so, given that the information collected on
manufactured dairy products is used by the Secretary to establish
minimum prices for Class III and Class IV milk under Federal milk
marketing orders. As mandated by the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of
2000 and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, this rule
establishes the Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting Program (DMRP).
Implementation of this program will result in timely, accurate, and
reliable market information to facilitate more informed marketing
decisions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This program is mandated by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as
amended by the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of 2000 and the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
The Agricultural Marketing Service is fulfilling a congressional
mandate to proceed with rulemaking to establish the DMRP and to
implement a plan to verify the price information submitted by various
dairy product manufacturing plants. Several alternatives to this
program were initially identified, but were not considered due to the
specific language contained in the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of
2000. These alternatives included: (1) the use of non-mandatory
surveys, (2) the use of alternative data sources such as the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange, and (3) collecting data less frequently.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Impact on Dairy Farmers
It is in the industry's best interest that NASS-reported prices be as
accurate as possible for calculating milk prices. Although dairy
farmers under the Federal milk marketing order program account for 61
percent (approximately 103 billion pounds of milk in 2004) of U.S. milk
production, all U.S. dairy
[[Page 69761]]
farmers are affected to some degree by the Federal order pricing.
Imprecise price information can be costly. For example, a 1 cent per
pound error in the May 2005 cheese price would cause a 9.65 cent per
hundredweight error in the Class III price and a 3.76 cent per
hundredweight error in the all market uniform or blend price (price
paid to dairy farmers). Multiplying the price error (3.76 cents) times
the quantity of milk marketed in Federal milk marketing order system
indicates that either producers would have received $4 million less for
their milk in the month of May 2005, than they did, or that
manufacturers would have paid $4 million more for milk in May 2005,
than they did.
Impact on Dairy Manufacturers
The cost to the dairy manufacturers and cold storage facilities of
completing the survey is assumed to be comparable to the hourly rate of
those collecting the data. Manufacturers must submit products prices 52
times a year and it is estimated that each report takes 20 minutes to
complete. Cold storage facilities must report their inventories 12
times a year and it is estimated that each report takes 30 minutes to
complete. The salary for employees completing the survey is estimated
at $22 per hour. Therefore, the annual cost to a manufacturer reporting
product prices is estimated at $381.26 and the annual cost to cold
storage facilities completing reports is $132.
Most manufacturers subject to reporting under the Dairy Product
Mandatory Reporting Program already report this information to NASS.
Therefore, the incremental cost of implementing the program will be for
those manufacturers who do not already report to NASS.
When the mandatory reporting program is implemented an additional 25
manufacturing plants will be required to submit product price reports.
Therefore, the incremental cost to the industry of implementing the
mandatory pricing program is estimated to be $9,531.50. It is estimated
that 110 cold storage facilities meet the mandatory reporting
requirements. Thus, the annual total incremental cost to cold storage
facilities is estimated to be $14,520. The total incremental cost borne
by dairy manufacturers and warehouses is approximately $24,000. With
respect to total annual costs, the costs to cold storage facilities
completing reports is $132 per facility for a total annual cost of
$14,520. The cost to manufacturers reporting product prices is
estimated at $381.26 per plant for a total annual cost of $37,363.
Thus, the total annual cost for submitting information under the
mandatory program is $51,883.48.
Impact on Government Costs
Background: In 2005, NASS collected prices information from 98 plants
that were submitted on 71 reports from 60 unique locations. Reports
generally are filed via fax with the appropriate State NASS office.
Some reports are sent via fax directly to the NASS headquarters office
in Washington, DC. Some reports are filed via NASS' electronic data
reporting (EDR) system. In all cases, the reports are keyed into NASS'
Dairy Product Prices (DPP) system (a SAS) database. The headquarters
NASS staffer who is responsible for the published report, queries the
DPP to generate various reports. Among these reports is the data
listing which has individual report information. For the AMS prices
verification program, NASS will generate a report from the data listing
matching AMS' requirements.
Assumptions for Incremental Cost Estimates: As stated in the
preliminary cost-benefit analysis, for the first year of all of the 60
reporting entities will be visited and the information contained in
each of the 71 reports will be verified for a specific review period.
Sales transaction records for all of the 98 plants will be analyzed.
The review period will be four weeks in the same month, with the
selected month varying according to the Verification Plan. It will take
4 hours to analyze the sales transactions for one week; two full days
per plant. The hourly salary for the verifier is $40 with a 30-percent
benefits rate. The travel cost per location is $100; per diem cost is
$75. In the subsequent years, those reporting locations that account
for top 80 percent of the reported volume will be visited each year, as
well as one-third of the reporting locations that account for the
remaining 20 percent of reported volume. Reporting locations in the
latter category will be visited at least once every three years. The
other assumptions concerning review period, length of time to analyze
records, and cost figures apply the same as for the first year.
First Year Incremental Cost Estimate: $102,236
Travel -- $6,000 (60 locations X $100)
Per Diem -- $14,700 (98 plants X 2 days X $75/day)
Salary/Benefits -- $81,536 (98 plants X 16 hours (2 days) X $52/hour)
Second & Subsequent Years Incremental Cost Estimate: $69,594
Travel -- $3,800 (38 locations X $100)
Per Diem -- $10,050 (67 plants X 16 hours (2 days) X $52/hour)
Salary/Benefits -- $55,744 (67 plants X16 hours (2 days) X $52/hour)
Benefits. The major benefit of mandatory price reporting is to assure
accurate price reporting by dairy manufacturers. The total incremental
cost of implementing the program is estimated to be $126,287.50 in the
first year and $93,645.50 in subsequent years. The incremental benefit
of the program cannot be quantified; therefore, net benefits cannot be
quantified.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 07/03/07 72 FR 36341
Interim Final Rule
Effective 08/02/07
Final Action 06/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
John Mengel
Chief Economist
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-4664
Email: john.mengel@usda.gov
RIN: 0581-AC66
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--AMS
4. LIVESTOCK MANDATORY REPORTING: REVISE REPORTING REGULATION FOR
SWINE, CATTLE, LAMB, AND BOXED BEEF (LS-07-01)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 1621
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 59
[[Page 69762]]
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule is necessary to re-establish the regulatory authority for the
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Program's continued operation and to
implement the changes to the swine reporting provision made to the Act,
as well as other changes to enhance the program's overall operation and
efficiency based on AMS' experience in the administration of the
program over the last 5 years.
Statement of Need:
This rulemaking is necessary to re-establish the regulatory authority
for the program's continued operation and incorporate the swine
reporting changes contained within the Reauthorization Act as well as
make other changes to enhance the program's overall effectiveness and
efficiency based on AMS' experience in the administration of the
program over the last 6-years.
Summary of Legal Basis:
On April 2, 2001, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) implemented
the Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) program as required by the
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 (1999 Act). The statutory
authority for the program lapsed on September 30, 2005. In October
2006, legislation was enacted to reauthorize the 1999 Act until
September 30, 2010, and to amend the swine reporting requirements of
the 1999 Act (Pub. Law 109-296) (Reauthorization Act.)
Alternatives:
AMS is fulfilling a Congressional mandate to proceed with rulemaking to
reestablish and revise the mandatory reporting regulation for swine,
cattle, lamb, and boxed beef.
Other options are to do nothing or to propose regulations for voluntary
reporting of market information for swine, cattle, lamb, and boxed
beef. Neither alternative is viable given that the Livestock Mandatory
Reporting Act was reauthorized to require mandatory reporting of market
information by certain livestock processing plants and directs the USDA
to promulgate regulations to implement the law.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The proposed rule facilitates open, transparent price discovery and
provides all market participants, both large and small, with comparable
levels of market information. The proposed rule is expected to reduce
the time and resources that market participants would otherwise expend
to assess current market conditions and reduce risk and uncertainty.
This proposed rule is strictly an informational measure and does not
impose any restrictions on the form, timing, or location of procurement
and sales arrangements in which subject packers and importers may
engage. Therefore, costs of the proposed rule are simply the costs
associated with the system development and maintenance, data
submission, and recordkeeping activities of the packers and importers
required to report information under this proposed rule, plus costs to
the Federal Government for operation of the program. However, most of
the entities that would be required to report under this proposed rule
already reported information prior to expiration of the 1999 Act on
September 30, 2005, and have since continued to do so voluntarily. As a
result, incremental costs for implementation of this proposed rule are
negligible relative to total costs associated with the program.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/08/07 72 FR 44672
NPRM Comment Period End 09/07/07
Final Action 05/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
State
Agency Contact:
Warren Preston
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202-720-6231
Fax: 202 690-3732
Email: warren.preston@usda.gov
RIN: 0581-AC67
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
5. REGULATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 8301 to 8317
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
APHIS is considering the need to regulate the movement (which includes
importation, containment, and field release) of genetically engineered
animals to ensure that the genetically engineered traits do not present
a health risk to livestock. Biotechnology research and development have
resulted in genetically engineered animals and animal products that are
ready for commercialization. Although these applications may provide
significant agricultural, human/animal health, and societal benefits,
there are also potential risks, concerns, and environmental impacts
associated with the technology that may require Federal oversight.
Statement of Need:
APHIS currently regulates the introduction (movement into the United
States or interstate, or release into the environment) of genetically
engineered organisms that may present a plant pest risk under 7 CFR
part 340, ``Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced
Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is
Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests.'' In consultation with other Federal
agencies, APHIS is beginning to develop a regulatory framework for
transgenic animals and other organisms to address animal health issues
such as pest and disease risks to livestock. Biotechnology research and
development have resulted in genetically-engineered (GE) animals and
animal products that are ready for commercialization. Although these
applications may provide significant agricultural, human/animal health
and societal benefits, there are also
[[Page 69763]]
potential risks, concerns, and environmental impacts associated with
the technology that requires Federal oversight.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The primary authority is provided by the Animal Health Protection Act,
which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict
the importation, entry, and interstate movement of any article if
necessary to prevent the introduction into or dissemination within the
United States of any pest or disease of livestock. Such articles may
include genetically engineered products.
Alternatives:
To be identified.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
To be determined.
Risks:
Animals and other organisms may be genetically engineered to exhibit a
trait that could present an animal health risk. The purpose of this
rulemaking is to address animal health risks, such as disease and pest
risks to livestock, that may be presented by these organisms.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 01/00/08
ANPRM Comment Period End 03/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
John Turner
Director, Policy Coordination Division, BRS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 146
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5720
RIN: 0579-AC37
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
6. ANIMAL WELFARE; REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR BIRDS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2131 to 2159
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 1 to 3
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
APHIS intends to establish standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of birds other than birds bred for use in
research.
Statement of Need:
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the
definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by specifically
excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus,
bred for use in research. While the definition of animal in the
regulations contained in 9 CFR part 1 has excluded rats of the genus
Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, that
definition has also excluded all birds (i.e., not just those birds bred
for use in research). In line with this change to the definition of
animal in the AWA, APHIS intends to establish standards in 9 CFR part 3
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds
other than those birds bred for use in research.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to
promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by
dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales,
and carriers and immediate handlers. Animals covered by the AWA include
birds that are not bred for use in research.
Alternatives:
To be identified.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
To be determined.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End 06/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Darrel Styles
Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0658
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
7. IMPORTATION OF PLANTS FOR PLANTING; ESTABLISHING A NEW CATEGORY OF
PLANTS FOR PLANTING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR IMPORTATION PENDING RISK
ASSESSMENT (RULEMAKING RESULTING FROM A SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 21 USC 136 and 136a
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 319
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This action would establish a new category in the regulations governing
the importation of nursery stock, also known as plants for planting.
This category would list taxa of plants for planting whose importation
is not authorized pending risk assessment. We
[[Page 69764]]
would allow foreign governments to request that a pest risk assessment
be conducted for a taxon whose importation is not authorized pending
risk evaluation. After the pest risk assessment was completed, we would
conduct rulemaking to remove the taxon from the proposed category if
determined appropriate by the risk assessment. We are also proposing to
expand the scope of the plants regulated in the plants for planting
regulations to include non-vascular plants. These changes would allow
us to react more quickly to evidence that a taxon of plants for
planting may pose a pest risk while ensuring that our actions are based
on scientific evidence.
Statement of Need:
APHIS typically relies on inspection at a Federal plant inspection
station or port of entry to mitigate the risks of pest introduction
associated with the importation of plants for planting. Importation of
plants for planting is further restricted or prohibited only if there
is specific evidence that such importation could introduce a quarantine
pest into the United States. Most of the taxa of plants for planting
currently being imported have not been thoroughly studied to determine
whether their importation presents a risk of introducing a quarantine
pest into the United States. The volume and the number of types of
plants for planting have increased dramatically in recent years, and
there are several problems associated with gathering data on what
plants for planting are being imported and on the risks such
importation presents. In addition, quarantine pests that enter the
United States via the importation of plants for planting pose a
particularly high risk of becoming established within the United
States. The current regulations need to be amended to better address
these risks.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation
or entry of any plant if the Secretary determines that the prohibition
or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United
States of a plant pest or noxious weed (7 USC 7712).
Alternatives:
APHIS has identified one alternative to the approach we are
considering. We could prohibit the importation of all nursery stock
pending risk evaluation, approval, and notice-and-comment rulemaking,
similar to APHIS's approach to regulating imported fruits and
vegetables. This approach would lead to a major interruption in
international trade and would have significant economic effects on both
U.S. importers and U.S. consumers of plants for planting.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Undetermined.
Risks:
In the absence of some action to revise the nursery stock regulations
to allow us to better address pest risks, increased introductions of
plant pests via imported nursery stock are likely, causing extensive
damage to both agricultural and natural plant resources.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End 08/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis & Operations, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 141
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
8. INTRODUCTION OF ORGANISMS AND PRODUCTS ALTERED OR PRODUCED THROUGH
GENETIC ENGINEERING
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 31 USC 9701
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 340
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
APHIS is considering changes to its regulations regarding the
importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of
genetically engineered organisms. We are seeking public comment on the
regulatory alternatives we have identified through scoping and on the
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) we have prepared relative
to those alternatives. This notice reflects the Agency's current
thinking on policy and program design issues affecting our
biotechnology programs. The DEIS evaluates the alternatives we have
identified so far in terms of their potential effects on the human
environment compared to our current regulatory program.
Statement of Need:
APHIS currently regulates the introduction (movement into the United
States or interstate, or release into the environment) of genetically
engineered organisms that may present a plant pest risk under 7 CFR
part 340, ``Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced
Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is
Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests.'' APHIS is evaluating its regulatory
program to determine if there is a need to revise its regulations in
light of our current knowledge and experience and advances in science
and technology.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The primary authority is provided by the Plant Protection Act, which
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the
importation, entry, and movement in interstate commerce any plant,
plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, or other
article if necessary to prevent the introduction into or dissemination
within the United States of any plant pest or noxious weed. Such
articles may include genetically engineered products.
Alternatives:
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) prepared for this action
evaluates all of the regulatory alternatives under consideration by the
Agency. Some key alternatives considered include whether APHIS should
broaden the scope of the regulations to reflect its authority over
noxious weeds and biological control organisms; whether and how to
revise
[[Page 69765]]
the regulations to make the Agency's use of risk-based categories--
where genetically engineered organisms are classified according to risk
and familiarity so that oversight and confinement vary by category--
more refined, more explicit and more transparent to the industry and
the public and what criteria should be used to establish risk-based
categories; how to manage genetically engineered organisms that present
only minor unresolved risks that can be mitigated effectively, and what
factors should be considered in establishing appropriate mitigations;
whether new or additional regulatory mechanisms are needed to ensure
that genetically engineered organisms producing pharmaceutical or
industrial compounds are subject to requirements and oversight
commensurate with the potential risks; for organisms that might be
commercialized but that do not meet the criteria for deregulation,
whether a new type of permitting system would be more appropriate in
terms of efficiency and effectiveness than the current system; whether
APHIS should establish a new regulatory approach to address incidents
of low-level presence of genetically engineered plant material; whether
APHIS should establish a new regulatory mechanism to allow for imports
of commodities for nonpropagative use, that is, for food, feed, or
processing, in cases where these commodities might not have been
deregulated in the United States; and whether to expand its current
exemption from interstate movement restrictions additional well-
studied, low-risk, genetically engineered research organisms.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
To be determined.
Risks:
While APHIS has always used a risk-based approach in regulating
genetically engineered organisms, there is a trend toward more highly
varied organisms. For example, genetic engineering technology has
advanced to the point where organisms can be developed that produce
novel proteins and other substances with biological activity or
industrial utility. We have initiated this rulemaking because APHIS
recognizes that the regulatory process may need greater flexibility and
rigor to more appropriately regulate the increasing variety of
organisms.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent to
Prepare an
Environmental Impact
Statement 01/23/04 69 FR 3271
Comment Period End 03/23/04
Notice of Availability of
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement 07/17/07 72 FR 39021
Comment Period End 09/11/07
NPRM 05/00/08
NPRM Comment Period End 07/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Michael Wach
Biotechnology Regulatory Services
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 147
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-0485
RIN: 0579-AC31
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
9. NUTRITION STANDARDS IN THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH AND SCHOOL
BREAKFAST PROGRAMS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 108-265, sec 103
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Public Law 108-265 requires the Secretary to issue regulations that
reflect specific recommendations for increased consumption of foods and
food ingredients in school nutrition programs based on the most recent
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
The current regulations require that reimbursable meals offered by
schools meet the applicable recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans. This proposed rule would revise the regulations on meal
patterns and nutrition standards to ensure that school meals reflect
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. (04-017)
Statement of Need:
This action is needed to update the NSLP and SBP requirements to
promote the consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-
fat and fat-free milk consistent with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. This action is also needed to update the nutrient and
calorie requirements to reflect the Dietary Reference Intakes.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law
108-265.
Alternatives:
FNS considered several options to implement the 2005 Dietary Guidelines
in the school meal programs in the most effective and least burdensome
manner. Several alternatives were discussed to update the age/grade
groups, calorie requirements, and menu planning approaches.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
This proposed rule would allow USDA's school meal programs to deliver
wholesome and nutrient-dense meals that reflect the latest nutrition
science, as stated in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the
Dietary Reference Intakes. Implementation of this proposal would
support the Federal government's efforts to reduce the proportion of
children and adolescents who are overweight or obese to five percent by
the year 2010, which is one of the objectives in the report ``Healthy
People 2010''. This proposed rule would not result in an increase in
Federal spending.
Risks:
Failure to update the NSLP and SBP regulations as proposed by this
action would jeopardize the ability of these nutrition programs to
safeguard the health and well-being of children, as intended by the
National School Lunch Act.
[[Page 69766]]
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End 03/00/08
Final Action 09/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD59
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
10. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM: IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM
INTEGRITY
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1766; PL 103-448; PL 104-193; PL 105-336
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 226
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule amends the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
regulations. The changes in this rule result from the findings of State
and Federal program reviews and from audits and investigations
conducted by the Office of Inspector General. This rule revises: State
agency criteria for approving and renewing institution applications;
program training and other operating requirements for child care
institutions and facilities; and State and institution-level monitoring
requirements. This rule also includes changes that are required by the
Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).
The changes are designed to improve program operations and monitoring
at the State and institution levels and, where possible, to streamline
and simplify program requirements for State agencies and institutions.
(95-024)
Statement of Need:
In recent years, State and Federal program reviews have found numerous
cases of mismanagement, abuse, and in some instances, fraud, by child
care institutions and facilities in the CACFP. These reviews revealed
weaknesses in management controls over program operations and examples
of regulatory noncompliance by institutions, including failure to pay
facilities or failure to pay them in a timely manner; improper use of
program funds for non-program expenditures; and improper meal
reimbursements due to incorrect meal counts or to miscategorized or
incomplete income eligibility statements. In addition, audits and
investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) have
raised serious concerns regarding the adequacy of financial and
administrative controls in CACFP. Based on its findings, OIG
recommended changes to CACFP review requirements and management
controls.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Some of the changes proposed in the rule are discretionary changes
being made in response to deficiencies found in program reviews and OIG
audits. Other changes codify statutory changes made by the Healthy
Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.
L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).
Alternatives:
In developing the proposal, the Agency considered various alternatives
to minimize burden on State agencies and institutions while ensuring
effective program operation. Key areas in which alternatives were
considered include State agency reviews of institutions and sponsoring
organization oversight of day care homes.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
This rule contains changes designed to improve management and financial
integrity in the CACFP. When implemented, these changes would affect
all entities in CACFP, from USDA to participating children and
children's households. These changes will primarily affect the
procedures used by State agencies in reviewing applications submitted
by, and monitoring the performance of, institutions which are
participating or wish to participate in the CACFP. Those changes which
would affect institutions and facilities will not, in the aggregate,
have a significant economic impact.
Data on CACFP integrity is limited, despite numerous OIG reports on
individual institutions and facilities that have been deficient in
CACFP management. While program reviews and OIG reports clearly
illustrate that there are weaknesses in parts of the program
regulations and that there have been weaknesses in oversight, neither
program reviews, OIG reports, nor any other data sources illustrate the
prevalence and magnitude of CACFP fraud and abuse. This lack of
information precludes USDA from estimating the amount of money lost due
to fraud and abuse or the reduction in fraud and abuse the changes in
this rule will realize.
Risks:
Operating under interim rules puts State agencies and institutions at
risk of implementing Program provisions subject to change in a final
rule.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/12/00 65 FR 55103
NPRM Comment Period End 12/11/00
Interim Final Rule 09/01/04 69 FR 53502
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/01/04
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 09/01/05
Final Action 03/00/08
[[Page 69767]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
11. FSP: ELIGIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THE FARM SECURITY
AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
PL 107-171, secs 4101 to 4109, 4114, 4115, and 4401
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 273
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking will amend Food Stamp Program regulations to implement
11 provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
that establish new eligibility and certification requirements for the
receipt of food stamps. (02-007)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement the food stamp certification and
eligibility provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This final rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has
limited discretion in implementing provisions of that law. Most of the
provisions in this rule were effective October 1, 2002, and must be
implemented by State agencies prior to publication of this rule.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule simplify State administration of the Food
Stamp Program, increase eligibility for the program among certain
groups, increase access to the program among low-income families and
individuals, and increase benefit levels. The provisions of Public Law
107-171 implemented by this rule have a 5-year cost of approximately
$1.9 billion.
Risks:
The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide--working families, eligible non-citizens, and elderly and
disabled individuals. Many low-income families don't earn enough money
and many elderly and disabled individuals don't receive enough in
retirement or disability benefits to meet all of their expenses and
purchase healthy and nutritious meals. The FSP serves a vital role in
helping these families and individuals achieve and maintain self-
sufficiency and purchase a nutritious diet. This rule implements the
certification and eligibility provisions of Public Law 107-171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It simplifies State
administration of the Food Stamp Program, increases eligibility for the
program among certain groups, increases access to the program among
low-income families and individuals, and increases benefit levels. The
provisions of this rule increase benefits by approximately $1.95
billion over 5 years. When fully effective in FY 2006, the provisions
of this rule will add approximately 415,000 new participants.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/16/04 69 FR 20724
NPRM Comment Period End 06/15/04
Final Action 04/00/08
Final Action Effective 08/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
12. QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV OF PUBLIC LAW 107-171
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2011 to 2032; PL 107-171
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 275
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule finalizes the interim rule ``Non-Discretionary Quality
Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171'' (published
October 16, 2003 at 68 FR 59519) and the proposed rule ``Discretionary
Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171''
(published September 23, 2005 at 70 FR 55776).
The following quality control (QC) provisions required by sections 4118
and 4119 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (title
IV of Public Law 107-171) and contained in the interim rule are
implemented by this final rule:
1) Timeframes for completing quality control reviews;
2) Timeframes for completing the arbitration process;
3) Timeframes for determining final error rates;
4) The threshold for potential sanctions and time period for sanctions;
5) The calculation of State error rates;
6) The formula for determining States' liability amounts;
7) Sanction notification and method of payment; and
[[Page 69768]]
8) Corrective action plans.
The following provisions required by sections 4118 and 4119 and
additional policy and technical changes, and contained in the proposed
rule, are implemented by this final rule:
Legislative changes based on or required by sections 4118 and 4119:
1) Eliminate enhanced funding;
2) Establish timeframes for completing individual quality control
reviews; and
3) Establish procedures for adjusting liability determinations
following appeal decisions.
Policy and technical changes:
1) Require State agency QC reviewers to attempt to complete review when
a household refuses to cooperate;
2) Mandate FNS validation of negative sample for purposes of high
performance bonuses;
3) Revise procedures for conducting negative case reviews;
4) Revise time frames for household penalties for refusal to cooperate
with State and Federal QC reviews;
5) Revise procedures for QC reviews of demonstration and SSA processed
cases;
6) Eliminate requirement to report variances resulting from Federal
information exchange systems (FIX) errors;
7) Eliminate references to integrated QC; and
8) Update definitions section to remove out-dated definitions. (02-014)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement the food stamp quality control
provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171, the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has no
discretion in implementing the time frames for completing quality
control reviews, the arbitration process, and determining the final
error rates; the threshold for potential sanctions and the time period
for the sanctions; the calculation for State error rates; the formula
for determining liability amounts; the sanction notification; method of
payment for liabilities; corrective action planning, and the
elimination of enhanced funding. These provisions were effective for
the fiscal year 2003 quality control review period and must have been
implemented by FNS and State agencies during fiscal year 2003. This
rule also deals in part with discretionary changes to the quality
control system resulting from Public Law 107-171. The provision
addressing results of appeals is required to be regulated by Public Law
107-171. The remaining changes amend existing regulations and are
required to make technical changes resulting from these changes or to
update policy consistent with current requirements.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule are not anticipated to have any impact on
benefit levels or administrative costs.
Risks:
The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide. The quality control system measures the accuracy of States
providing food stamp benefits to the program recipients. This rule is
intended to implement the quality control provisions of Public Law 107-
701, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It will
significantly revise the system for determining State agency
liabilities and sanctions for high payment error rates.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 10/16/03 68 FR 59519
Interim Final Rule
Effective 12/15/03
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/14/04
NPRM 02/23/05 70 FR 55776
NPRM Comment Period End 12/22/05
Final Action 06/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD37
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
13. SPECIAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS: FLUID MILK SUBSTITUTIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 108-265, sec 102
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Currently, by regulation, schools must make substitutions for fluid
milk for students with a disability when the request is authorized by a
licensed physician and may make substitutions for students with medical
or other dietary needs if requested by recognized medical authority.
These regulatory provisions were included in Public Law 108-265 which
amended the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Public Law
108-265 also amended the current law to allow schools to substitute
non-dairy beverages nutritionally equivalent (as established by the
Secretary) to fluid milk for medical or other special dietary needs at
the request of a parent/guardian. In response to Public Law 108-265,
the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program
regulations will be revised to add these provisions. (04-016)
Statement of Need:
The changes made to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
concerning substitutions for fluid milk are intended to assist children
who cannot consume milk due to medical reasons. This regulation allows
schools to make substitutions at the request of a parent or guardian,
which assists families that are unable to obtain a doctor's statement.
However, the Secretary must develop criteria to limit
[[Page 69769]]
the substitutions for milk to nutritionally equivalent beverages. The
determination of nutritionally equivalent beverages will require
careful research and consultation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law
108-265.
Alternatives:
USDA worked with other Federal agencies to develop criteria for
nutritionally equivalent substitutes for fluid milk as well as
conducting research. USDA issued a proposed rule on November 9, 2006,
and received 107 public comments.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Schools may incur additional costs in obtaining and offering substitute
beverages. However, children who cannot consume milk will now have a
beverage nutritionally equivalent to milk.
Risks:
USDA must be diligent in making any determinations of nutritional
equivalency to milk.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 11/09/06 71 FR 65753
NPRM Comment Period End 01/08/07
Final Action 01/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD58
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
14. DIRECT CERTIFICATION OF CHILDREN IN FOOD STAMP HOUSEHOLDS AND
CERTIFICATION OF HOMELESS, MIGRANT, AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN FOR FREE MEALS
IN THE NSLP, SBP, AND SMP
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 108-265, sec 104
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 245
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In response to Public Law 108-265, which amended the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, 7 CFR 245, Determining Eligibility for Free
and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools, will be amended to
establish categorical (automatic) eligibility for free meals and free
milk upon documentation that a child is (1) homeless as defined by the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; (2) a runaway served by grant
programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; or (3) migratory as
defined in section 1309(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. The rule also requires phase-in of mandatory direct certification
for children who are members of households receiving food stamps and
continues discretionary direct certification for other categorically
eligible children. (04-018)
Statement of Need:
The changes made to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
concerning direct certification are intended to improve program access,
reduce paperwork, and improve the accuracy of the delivery of free meal
benefits. This regulation will implement the statutory changes and
provide State agencies and local educational agencies with the policies
and procedures to conduct mandatory and discretionary direct
certification.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law
108-265.
Alternatives:
FNS will be working closely with State agencies to implement the
changes made by this regulation and will be developing extensive
guidance materials in conjunction with our cooperators.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
This regulation will reduce paperwork, target benefits more precisely,
and will improve program access of eligible school children.
Risks:
This regulation may require adjustments to existing computer systems to
more readily share information between schools, food stamp offices, and
other agencies.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 12/00/07
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 12/00/08
Final Action 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
15. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND
CHILDREN (WIC): WIC VENDOR COST CONTAINMENT
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1786
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 246
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, June 30, 2006.
[[Page 69770]]
Abstract:
This final rule amends the WIC regulations to strengthen vendor cost
containment. The rule incorporates into program regulations new
legislative requirements that affect the selection, authorization, and
reimbursement of retail vendors. These requirements are contained in
the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-
265), which was enacted on June 30, 2004. The rule reflects the
statutory provisions that require WIC State agencies to implement a
vendor peer group system, competitive price selection criteria, and
allowable reimbursement levels in a manner that ensures that the WIC
Program pays authorized vendors competitive prices for supplemental
foods. It also requires State agencies to ensure that vendors that
derive more than 50 percent of their annual food sales revenue from WIC
food instruments do not result in higher food costs to the program than
do other vendors. The intent of these provisions is to maximize the
number of women, infants, and children served with available Federal
funding. (04-029)
Statement of Need:
This action is needed to implement the vendor cost containment
provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004,
Public Law 108-265. The rule requires WIC State agencies to operate
vendor management systems that effectively contain food costs by
ensuring that prices paid for supplemental foods are competitive. The
rule also responds to data which indicate that WIC food expenditures
increasingly include payments to a type of vendor whose prices are not
governed by the market forces that affect most retail grocers. As a
result, the prices charged by these vendors tend to be higher than
those of other retail grocery stores participating in the program. To
ensure that the program pays competitive prices, this rule codifies the
new statutory requirements for State agencies to use in evaluating
vendor applicants' prices during the vendor selection process and when
paying vendors for supplemental foods following authorization.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 203(e)(10) of Public Law 108-265, Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004.
Alternatives:
This rule implements the vendor peer group provisions of the Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, which FNS believes is an
effective means of controlling WIC food costs. While this Act mandates
that States establish peer groups, competitive price criteria, and
allowable reimbursement levels, and states that these requirements must
result in the outcome of paying above-50-percent vendors no more than
regular vendors, the rule does not specify particular criteria for peer
groups or acceptable methods of setting competitive price criteria and
allowable reimbursement levels. FNS considered mandating specific means
of developing peer groups, competitive price criteria, and allowable
reimbursement levels in order to ensure that the outcome of this
legislation was achieved.
However, given States' responsibility to manage WIC as a discretionary
grant program and the varying market conditions in each State, FNS
believes that States need flexibility to develop their own peer groups,
competitive price criteria, and allowable reimbursement levels. At the
October 2004 meeting the FNS convened to gain input for this rule,
States indicated that they needed the ability to design cost
containment practices that would be effective in their own markets and
would ensure participant access. In addition, there is little
information about the effectiveness of particular cost containment
practices in the variety of markets represented by the 89 WIC State
agencies. Mandating more specific means of developing peer groups,
competitive price criteria, and allowable reimbursement levels could
have unintended negative consequences for participant access, food
costs and administrative burden.
As States gain experience and the results of their vendor cost
containment practices become apparent, FNS may develop further
regulations and guidance to improve vendor cost containment. In the
interim, FNS believes that the current rule will substantially
accomplish the goal of the Act of containing food costs and ensuring
that above-50-percent vendors do not result in higher costs to the WIC
Program than regular vendors.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Costs: This rule places new requirements on State agencies; therefore,
the cost implications of this rule relate primarily to administrative
burden for WIC State agencies. These cost implications are partially
dependent on the current practices of State agencies relative to the
requirements of the rule. Detailed information regarding the cost
implications of this rule is contained in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis developed by FNS to accompany this rulemaking.
Benefits: The WIC Program will benefit from the provisions of this rule
by reducing unnecessary food expenditures, thus increasing the
potential to serve more eligible women, infants, and children for the
same cost. This rule should have the effect of ensuring that payments
to vendors, particularly vendors that derive more than 50 percent of
their annual food sales revenue from WIC food instruments, reflect
competitive prices for WIC foods. The Regulatory Impact Analysis
prepared by FNS to accompany this rulemaking projects an estimated
monthly cost savings of over $6.25 million. (Details of this projection
can be found in the complete Regulatory Impact Analysis.)
Risks:
Because the vendor peer group provisions in the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 and this rule provide for some flexibility
in implementation, and because there is a wide degree of variation in
food prices and current vendor cost containment practices across State
agencies, the impact of many of the provisions of this rule is
uncertain. Uncertainties include the administrative burden State
agencies will incur and the savings that can be realized nationally or
in any State agency. The major uncertainties for both administrative
burden and program savings are discussed in greater detail in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 11/29/05 70 FR 71708
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 11/29/06
Interim Final Rule
Effective 12/29/05
Final Action 02/00/08
Final Action Effective 03/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
[[Page 69771]]
URL For More Information:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD71
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
16. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND
CHILDREN (WIC): REVISIONS IN THE WIC FOOD PACKAGES
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1786
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 246
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, November 2006.
CN and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-265) requires
issuance of final rule within 18 months of release of IOM Report.
Abstract:
This interim final rule implements the first comprehensive revisions to
the WIC food packages since 1980. These revised food packages were
developed to better reflect current nutrition science and dietary
recommendations than do current food packages, within the parameters of
current program costs. This interim final rule revises regulations
governing the WIC food packages to align the WIC food packages with the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) (1) and current infant feeding
practice guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics, better
promote and support the establishment of successful long-term
breastfeeding, provide WIC participants with a wider variety of food,
and provide WIC State agencies with greater flexibility in prescribing
food packages to accommodate participants with cultural food
preferences. (05-006)
Statement of Need:
As the population served by WIC has grown and become more diverse over
the last 20 years, the nutritional risks faced by participants have
changed, and though nutrition science has advanced, the WIC
supplemental food packages have remained largely unchanged. A rule is
needed to implement recommended changes to the WIC food packages based
on the current nutritional needs of WIC participants and advances in
nutrition science.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, enacted on
June 30, 2004, requires the Department to issue a final rule within 18
months of receiving the Institute of Medicine's report on revisions to
the WIC food packages. This report was published and released to the
public on April 27, 2005.
Alternatives:
FNS is in the process of developing a regulatory impact analysis that
will address a variety of alternatives that are considered in the
interim final rulemaking. A regulatory impact analysis will be
published as an appendix to the interim final rulemaking.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The regulatory impact analysis for the proposed rule provides a
reasonable estimate of the anticipated effects of the interim final
rule. This analysis estimated that the provisions of the proposed rule
would have a minimal impact on the costs of overall operations of the
WIC Program over 5 years. The regulatory impact analysis was published
as an appendix.
Risks:
The proposed rule to revise regulations pertaining to the supplemental
foods provided through the WIC Program was published in the Federal
Register on August 7, 2006 (71 FR 44784), with a 90-day comment period.
The regulatory impact analysis was published as an appendix. A total of
46,502 comment letters were received on the proposed rule. The interim
final rule also provides a comment period. Opportunities for training
on and discussion of the revised WIC food packages will be offered to
State agencies and other entities as necessary.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/07/06 71 FR 44784
NPRM Comment Period End 11/06/06
Interim Final Rule 12/00/07
Interim Final Rule
Effective 02/00/08
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State, Tribal
URL For More Information:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic
URL For Public Comments:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: sheri.ackerman@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD77
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
17. EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
21 USC 1031 to 1056
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
egg
[[Page 69772]]
products plants and establishments that pasteurize shell eggs to
develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
(HACCP) systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
FSIS also is proposing pathogen reduction performance standards that
would be applicable to egg products and pasteurized shell eggs. FSIS is
proposing to amend the Federal egg products inspection regulations by
removing current requirements for prior approval by FSIS of egg
products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment prior to their
use in official plants. The Agency also plans to eliminate the prior
label approval system for egg products. This proposal will not
encompass shell egg packers. In the near future, FSIS will initiate
non-regulatory outreach efforts for shell egg packers that will provide
information intended to help them to safely process shell eggs intended
for human consumption or further processing.
Statement of Need:
The actions being proposed are part of FSIS' regulatory reform effort
to improve FSIS' shell egg and egg products food safety regulations,
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. FSIS also is taking these actions in
light of changing inspection priorities and recent findings of
Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.
This proposal is directly related to FSIS' PR/HACCP initiative.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This proposed rule is authorized under the Egg Products Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056). It is not the result of any specific mandate
by the Congress or a Federal court.
Alternatives:
A team of FSIS economists and food technologists is conducting a cost-
benefit analysis to evaluate the potential economic impacts of several
alternatives on the public, egg products industry, and FSIS. These
alternatives include: (1) Taking no regulatory action; (2) requiring
all inspected egg products plants to develop, adopt, and implement
written sanitation SOPs and HACCP plans; and (3) converting to a
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard many of the
current highly prescriptive egg products processing requirements. The
team will consider the effects of a uniform, across-the-board standard
for all egg products; a performance standard based on the relative risk
of different classes of egg products; and a performance standard based
on the relative risks to public health of different production
processes.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking to
industry, FSIS and other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
small entities, and foreign countries. The expected costs to industry
will depend on a number of factors. These costs include the required
lethality, or level of pathogen reduction, and the cost of HACCP plan
and sanitation SOP development, implementation, and associated employee
training. The pathogen reduction costs will depend on the amount of
reduction sought and on the classes of product, product formulations,
or processes.
Relative enforcement costs to FSIS and Food and Drug Administration may
change because the two agencies share responsibility for inspection and
oversight of the egg industry and a common farm-to-table approach for
shell egg and egg products food safety. Other Federal agencies and
local governments are not likely to be affected.
Egg and egg product inspection systems of foreign countries wishing to
export eggs and egg products to the U.S. must be equivalent to the U.S.
system. FSIS will consult with these countries, as needed, if and when
this proposal becomes effective.
This proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on small
entities. The entities that would be directly affected by this proposal
would be the approximately 80 federally inspected egg products plants,
most of which are small businesses, according to Small Business
Administration criteria. If necessary, FSIS will develop compliance
guides to assist these small firms in implementing the proposed
requirements.
Potential benefits associated with this rulemaking include:
Improvements in human health due to pathogen reduction; improved
utilization of FSIS inspection program resources; and cost savings
resulting from the flexibility of egg products plants in achieving a
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard. Once specific
alternatives are identified, economic analysis will identify the
quantitative and qualitative benefits associated with each alternative.
Human health benefits from this rulemaking are likely to be small
because of the low level of (chiefly post-processing) contamination of
pasteurized egg products. In light of recent scientific studies that
raise questions about the efficacy of current regulations, however, it
is likely that measurable reductions will be achieved in the risk of
foodborne illness.
The preliminary anticipated annualized costs of the proposed action are
approximately $7.0 million. The preliminary anticipated benefits of the
proposed action are approximately $90.0 million per year.
Risks:
FSIS believes that this regulatory action may result in a further
reduction in the risks associated with egg products. The development of
a lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard for egg
products, replacing command-and-control regulations, will remove
unnecessary regulatory obstacles to, and provide incentives for,
innovation to improve the safety of egg products.
To assess the potential risk-reduction impacts of this rulemaking on
the public, an intra-Agency group of scientific and technical experts
is conducting a risk management analysis. The group has been charged
with identifying the lethality requirement sufficient to ensure the
safety of egg products and the alternative methods for implementing the
requirement. FSIS has developed new risk assessments for SE in eggs and
for Salmonella spp. in liquid egg products to evaluate the risk
associated with the regulatory alternatives.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 07/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
[[Page 69773]]
Agency Contact:
Victoria Levine
Program Analyst, Regulations and Petitions Policy Staff
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5627
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: victoria.levine@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AC58
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
18. CHANGES TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FOOD
PRODUCTS CONTAINING MEAT AND POULTRY
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
21 U.S.C. 601(j); 21 U.S.C. 454(f)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 303.1; 9 CFR 381.15
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) have concluded that a clearer approach to
determining jurisdiction over meat and poultry products is possible.
This approach involves considering the contribution of the meat or
poultry ingredients to the identity of the food. FSIS is proposing to
amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to
provide consistency and predictability in the jurisdiction over nine
products or product categories for which there has historically been
confusion concerning whether these products fall within the
jurisdiction of FSIS or FDA. These proposed changes would exempt cheese
and cheese products prepared with less than 50% meat or poultry;
breads, rolls and buns prepared with less than 50% meat or poultry;
dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and flavors; pizza with meat or
poultry; and salad dressings prepared with less than 50% meat or
poultry from the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and
the Poultry Product Inspection Act and would clarify that bagel dogs,
natural casings, and close faced-sandwiches are subject to the
requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act.
Statement of Need:
Over the years, FSIS has made decisions about the jurisdiction under
which food products containing meat or poultry ingredients are produced
based on the amount of meat or poultry in the product; whether the
product is represented as a meat or poultry product (that is, whether a
term that refers to meat or poultry is used on labeling); whether the
product is perceived by consumers as a product of the meat or poultry
industries; and whether the product contains poultry or meat from an
accepted source. With regard to the consumer perception factor, FSIS
made decisions on a case-by-case basis, mostly in response to
situations involving determinations for compliance and enforcement.
Although this case-by-case approach resulted in decisions that made
sense at the time that they were made, a review in 2004-2005 by a
working group of FSIS and FDA representatives highlighted that some of
the decisions do not appear to be fully consistent with other product
decisions and that the reasoning behind various determinations were not
fully articulated or supported.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), and the Egg
Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1032), and the regulations
that implement these Acts, FSIS has authority over all meat food and
poultry products and processed egg products. Under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the regulations that implement it,
FDA has authority over all foods not under FSIS' jurisdiction,
including dairy, bread and other grain products, vegetables and other
produce, and other products, such as seafood.
According to the provisions of the FMIA and PPIA, the Secretary has the
authority to exempt certain human food products from the definition of
a meat food product (21 U.S.C. 601(j)) or a poultry product (20 U.S.C.
454(f)) based on either of two factors: (1) the product contains only a
relatively small proportion of livestock ingredients or poultry
ingredients, or (2) the product historically has not been considered by
consumers as a product of the meat food or poultry industry, and under
such conditions as he or she may prescribe to ensure that the livestock
or poultry ingredients are not adulterated and that the products are
not represented as meat food or poultry products.
Alternatives:
FSIS has considered over the years a number of variations to clarify
the confusion regarding jurisdiction for these various products.
Alternative 1: Maintain the status quo. Although FSIS has considered
taking no action at this time, the Agency does not recommend this
option because of the continued confusion that exists among industry
and consumers as to jurisdictional coverage for nine categories of
products.
Alternative 2: Reassess the statutory factors for making jurisdiction
decision and recommend an amendment. The amendment of the statute would
be from the historical perception factor because that is the factor, of
the two statutory factors, that the working group identified as leading
to the state of confusion about the jurisdiction of certain products
containing meat or poultry.
Alternative 3: Adopt some of the FDA/FSIS working group's suggested
approach to making clear and transparent jurisdiction decisions by
proposing changes to regulations to codify the current policies on
exempted products.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
FSIS estimates that the net costs of the rule would be approximately
$12 million. This consists of approximately $18 million of one-time and
annual costs for establishments producing product that will transfer to
FSIS jurisdiction and net savings of $6 million for establishments
producing time product that will transfer to FDA jurisdiction.
FSIS' preliminary estimate of total benefits of the rule is
approximately $15 million. Benefits would accrue to FSIS and FDA for
personnel time saved and to industry for personnel saved.
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
[[Page 69774]]
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Charles Gioglio
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-3625
Fax: 202 720-0582
Email: charles.gioglio@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD28
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
19. PUBLIC HEALTH-BASED POULTRY SLAUGHTER INSPECTION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 381.66; 9 CFR 381.67 9 CFR 381.76; 9 CFR 381.83 9 CFR 381.91; 9
CFR 381.94
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing a new inspection system for young poultry slaughter
establishments that would facilitate public health-based inspection.
This new system would be available initially only to young chicken
slaughter establishments. Establishments that slaughter broilers,
fryers, roasters, and Cornish game hens (as defined in 9 CFR 381.170)
would be considered as ``young chicken establishments.'' FSIS is also
proposing to revoke the provisions that allow young chicken slaughter
establishments to operate under the current Streamlined Inspection
System (SIS) or the New Line Speed (NELS) Inspection System. The
proposed rule would establish new performance standards to reduce
pathogens. FSIS anticipates that this proposed rule would provide the
framework for action to provide public health-based inspection in all
establishments that slaughter amenable poultry species.
Under the proposed new system, young chicken slaughter establishments
would be required to sort chicken carcasses and to conduct other
activities to ensure that carcasses are not adulterated before they
enter the chilling tank.
Statement of Need:
Because of the risk to the public health associated with pathogens on
young chicken carcasses, FSIS is proposing a new inspection system that
would allow for more effective inspection of young chicken carcasses,
would allow the Agency to more effectively allocate its resources,
would encourage industry to more readily use new technology, and would
include new performance standards to reduce pathogens.
This proposed rule is an example of regulatory reform because it would
facilitate technological innovation in young chicken slaughter
establishments. It would likely result in more cost-effective dressing
of young chickens that are ready to cook or ready for further
processing. Similarly, it would likely result in more efficient and
effective use of Agency resources.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Secretary of Agriculture is charged by the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA--21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.) with carrying out a
mandatory poultry products inspection program. The Act requires post-
mortem inspection of all carcasses of slaughtered poultry subject to
the Act and such reinspection as deemed necessary (21 U.S.C. 455(b)).
The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as
are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act (21 U.S.C.
463(b)). The Agency has tentatively determined that this rule would
facilitate FSIS post-mortem inspection of young chicken carcasses. The
proposed new system would likely result in more efficient and effective
use of Agency resources and in industry innovations.
Alternatives:
FSIS considered the following options in developing this proposal:
1) No action.
2) Propose to implement HACCP-Based Inspection Models Pilot in
regulations.
3) Propose to establish a mandatory, rather than a voluntary, new
inspection system for young chicken slaughter establishments.
4) Propose standards of identity regulations for young chickens that
include trim and processing defect criteria and that take into account
the intended use of the product.
5) Propose a voluntary new inspection system for young chicken
slaughter establishments and propose standards of identity for whole
chickens, regardless of the products' intended use.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The proposed performance standards and the implementation of public
health-based inspection would likely improve the public health. FSIS is
conducting a risk assessment for this proposed rule to assess the
likely public health benefits that the implementation of this rule may
achieve.
Establishments that volunteer for this proposed new inspection system
alternative would likely need to make capital investments in facilities
and equipment. They may also need to add labor (trained employees).
However, one of the beneficial effects of these investments would
likely be the lowering of the average cost per pound to dress poultry
properly. Cost savings would likely result because of increased line
speeds, increased productivity, and increased flexibility to industry.
The expected lower average unit cost for dressing poultry would likely
give a marketing advantage to establishments under the new system.
Consumers would likely benefit from lower retail prices for high
quality poultry products. The rule would also likely provide
opportunities for the industry to innovate because of the increased
flexibility it would allow poultry slaughter establishments. In
addition, in the public sector, benefits would accrue to FSIS from the
more effective deployment of FSIS inspection program personnel to
verify process control based on risk factors at each establishment.
Risks:
Salmonella and other pathogens are present on a substantial portion of
poultry carcasses inspected by FSIS. Foodborne salmonella cause a large
number of human illnesses that at times lead to hospitalization and
even death. There is an apparent relationship between human illness and
prevalence levels for salmonella in young chicken carcasses. FSIS
believes that through better allocation of inspection resources and the
use of performance standards, it would be able to reduce the prevalence
of salmonella and other pathogens in young chickens.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
[[Page 69775]]
Government Levels Affected:
State
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD32
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
20. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED MEAT AND
POULTRY PRODUCTS; CONTROL OF LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES IN READY-TO-EAT
MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR
325; 9 CFR 331; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 417; 9 CFR 430; 9 CFR 431
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS has proposed to establish pathogen reduction performance standards
for all ready-to-eat (RTE) and partially heat-treated meat and poultry
products, and measures, including testing, to control Listeria
monocytogenes in RTE products. The performance standards spell out the
objective level of pathogen reduction that establishments must meet
during their operations in order to produce safe products but allow the
use of customized, plant-specific processing procedures other than
those prescribed in the earlier regulations. With HACCP, food safety
performance standards give establishments the incentive and flexibility
to adopt innovative, science-based food safety processing procedures
and controls, while providing objective, measurable standards that can
be verified by Agency inspectional oversight. This set of performance
standards will include and be consistent with standards already in
place for certain ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.
Statement of Need:
Although FSIS routinely samples and tests some ready-to-eat products
for the presence of pathogens prior to distribution, there are no
specific regulatory pathogen reduction requirements for most of these
products. The proposed performance standards are necessary to help
ensure the safety of these products; give establishments the incentive
and flexibility to adopt innovative, science-based food safety
processing procedures and controls; and provide objective, measurable
standards that can be verified by Agency oversight.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the
Poultry Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), FSIS issues
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products
prepared for distribution in commerce. The regulations, along with FSIS
inspection programs, are designed to ensure that meat and poultry
products are safe, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and
packaged.
Alternatives:
As an alternative to all of the proposed requirements, FSIS considered
taking no action. As alternatives to the proposed performance standard
requirements, FSIS considered end-product testing and requiring ``use-
by'' date labeling on ready-to-eat products.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Benefits are expected to result from fewer contaminated products
entering commercial food distribution channels as a result of improved
sanitation and process controls and in-plant verification. FSIS
believes that the benefits of the rule would exceed the total costs of
implementing its provisions. FSIS currently estimates net benefits from
the 2003 interim final rule from $500 to $700 million, with annual
costs at $98.7 million, if FSIS discounts the capital cost at 7%. FSIS
is continuing to analyze the potential impact of the other provisions
of the proposal.
The other main provisions of the proposed rule are: Lethality
performance standards for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 and
stabilization performance standards for C. perfringens that firms must
meet when producing RTE meat and poultry products. Most of the costs of
these requirements would be associated with one-time process
performance validation in the first year of implementation of the rule
and with revision of HACCP plans. Benefits are expected to result from
the entry into commercial food distribution channels of product with
lower levels of contamination resulting from improved in-plant process
verification and sanitation. Consequently, there will be fewer cases of
foodborne illness.
Risks:
Before FSIS published the proposed rule, FDA and FSIS had estimated
that each year L. monocytogenes caused 2,540 cases of foodborne
illness, including 500 fatalities. The Agencies estimated that about
65.3 percent of these cases, or 1660 cases and 322 deaths per year,
were attributable to RTE meat and poultry products. The analysis of the
interim final rule on control of L. monocytogenes conservatively
estimated that implementation of the rule would lead to an annual
reduction of 27.3 deaths and 136.7 illnesses. FSIS is continuing to
analyze data on production volume and Listeria controls in the RTE meat
and poultry products industry and is using the FSIS risk assessment
model for L. monocytogenes to determine the likely risk reduction
effects of the rule. Preliminary results indicate that the risk
reductions being achieved are somewhat greater than those estimated in
the analysis of the interim rule.
FSIS is also analyzing the potential risk reductions that might be
achieved by implementing the lethality and stabilization performance
standards for products that would be subject to the proposed rule. The
risk reductions to be achieved by the proposed rule and that are being
achieved by the interim rule are intended to contribute to the Agency's
public health protection effort.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/27/01 66 FR 12590
NPRM Comment Period End 05/29/01
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 07/03/01 66 FR 35112
NPRM Comment Period End 09/10/01
Interim Final Rule 06/06/03 68 FR 34208
[[Page 69776]]
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/06/03
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/31/05
NPRM Comment Period
Reopened 03/24/05 70 FR 15017
NPRM Comment Period End 05/09/05
Affirmation of Interim
Final Rule 03/00/08
Final Action 08/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
21. NUTRITION LABELING OF SINGLE-INGREDIENT PRODUCTS AND GROUND OR
CHOPPED MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601 et seq; 21 USC 451 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS has proposed to amend the Federal meat and poultry products
inspection regulations to require nutrition labeling for the major cuts
of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either on their
label or at their point-of-purchase, unless an exemption applies. FSIS
also proposed to require nutrition information on the label of ground
or chopped meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies. The
requirements for ground or chopped products will be consistent with
those for multi-ingredient products.
FSIS also proposed to amend the nutrition labeling regulations to
provide that when a ground or chopped product does not meet the
regulatory criteria to be labeled ``low fat,'' a lean percentage claim
may be included on the label or in labeling, as long as a statement of
the fat percentage also is displayed on the label or in labeling.
Statement of Need:
The Agency will require that nutrition information be provided for the
major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either
on their label or at their point-of-purchase, because during the most
recent surveys of retailers, the Agency did not find significant
participation in the voluntary nutrition labeling program for single-
ingredient, raw meat and poultry products. Ground or chopped products
are similar to multi-ingredient products. This rule is necessary so
that consumers can have the information they need to construct healthy
diets.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
451 to 470).
Alternatives:
No action; nutrition labels required on all single-ingredient, raw
products (major cuts and non-major cuts) and all ground or chopped
products; nutrition labels required on all major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw products (but not non-major cuts) and all ground or
chopped products; nutrition information at the point-of-purchase
required for all single-ingredient, raw products (major and non-major
cuts) and for all ground or chopped products.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Costs will include the equipment for making labels, labor, and
materials used for labels for ground or chopped products. The cost of
providing nutrition labeling for the major cuts of single-ingredient,
raw meat and poultry products should not be significant, because retail
establishments would have the option of providing nutrition information
through point-of-purchase materials.
Benefits of the nutrition labeling rule would result if consumers
modify their diets in response to new nutrition information concerning
ground or chopped products and the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw
products. Reductions in consumption of fat and cholesterol are
associated with reduced incidence of cancer and coronary heart disease.
FSIS has concluded that the quantitative benefits will exceed the
quantitative costs of the rule. FSIS estimates that the discounted
annual benefits of the rule will range from approximately $200 to $250
million using a 7% discount rate. FSIS estimates that the discounted
annual costs will be approximately $30 million, using a 7% discount
rate.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/18/01 66 FR 4970
NPRM Comment Period End 04/18/01
Extension of Comment
Period 04/20/01 66 FR 20213
NPRM Comment Period End 07/17/01
Final Action 08/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Charles Gioglio
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-3625
Fax: 202 720-0582
Email: charles.gioglio@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AC60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
22. AVAILABILITY OF LISTS OF RETAIL CONSIGNEES DURING MEAT OR POULTRY
PRODUCT RECALLS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
5 USC 301, 552
[[Page 69777]]
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 390
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has proposed to amend the
federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to provide
that the Agency will make available to the public lists of the retail
consignees of meat and poultry products that have been voluntarily
recalled by a federally inspected meat or poultry products
establishment. FSIS has proposed this action because it believes that
making this information available will be of significant value to
consumers and the industry. It will clarify what products should be
removed from commerce and from consumers' possession because there is
reason to believe they are adulterated or misbranded.
Statement of Need:
This regulatory action is necessary to provide important information to
help consumers identify recalled products.
Consumer activists and States have increasingly demanded the public
release of information on where recalled meat and poultry products have
been shipped. The States have requested this information be provided
without the limitations imposed by FSIS's regulations. Consumer groups
have claimed that the public needs this information to fully protect
itself. In response to these requests, FSIS is proposing to make
available to the public the names of likely retail consignees of
recalled meat and poultry products.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This regulatory action is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental
regulations, and 5 U.S.C. 552, Public information; agency rules,
opinions, orders, records, and proceedings. It is not the result of any
specific mandate by the Congress or a Federal court.
Alternatives:
FSIS has prepared a regulatory impact analysis to evaluate the
potential economic impacts of several alternatives on the public, the
meat and poultry industry, and FSIS. These alternatives include: (1)
Including local health departments as entities that could receive
recall distribution lists; (2) making available to the general public
recall distribution lists only in response to a Freedom of Information
request; and (3) making lists available to State agencies with
agreements with FSIS under 9 CFR 390.9.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking.
This regulatory action would provide information to consumers about
meat and poultry products sold at retail establishments that are
believed to be adulterated or misbranded and are therefore subject to
being recalled. The consumption of such products may cause food borne
illness and other adverse health consequences, including death.
If consumers use retail consignee information and are better able to
identify and return recalled meat and poultry products to the stores
where they purchased them, the recall process will be more timely and
effective. Potential benefits of the proposal are expected as a result
of making more information available to consumers regarding the
location of meat and poultry products subject to recall. The Agency
does not expect the benefits to be significant. There is no research or
empirical evidence upon which to quantify potential benefits.
Risks:
N/A
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/07/06 71 FR 11326
NPRM Comment Period End 06/11/06 71 FR 27211
Final Action 07/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Mr. Philip Derfler
Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 350, Jamie L. Whitten Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3700
Phone: 202 720-2709
Fax: 202 720-2025
Email: philip.derfler@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD10
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Forest Service (FS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
23. FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PROCEDURES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
40 CFR 1507.3
CFR Citation:
36 CFR 220
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Forest Service is proposing to move existing Agency NEPA procedures
required by 40 CFR 1507.3 from Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 to the
CFR, add new procedures, and edit some existing procedures. Presently,
Forest Service procedures are combined with Agency guidance in FSH
1909.15 along with quotations from the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations. Having Agency NEPA procedures in regulations, separate
from guidance, will make it easier for the Forest Service to provide
guidance through the agency directive system. Agency internal processes
will continue to reside in FSH 1909.15 with references to both CEQ and
Forest Service NEPA procedures.
Statement of Need:
The Forest Service is proposing to move existing agency NEPA
procedures, required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
codified at 40 CFR 1507.3, from the internal Forest Service
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 to the Code
of Federal Regulations. New procedures would be added and existing
procedures would be revised where clarity is needed to incorporate CEQ
guidance and align agency NEPA procedures with agency decision
processes.
Presently, the Forest Service NEPA procedures are combined with Agency
guidance in FSH 1909.15 along with quotations from the CEQ regulations.
This handbook contains general guidance such as how to select an
interdisciplinary team, thereby associating guidance with NEPA
procedures. Guidance and quotes from the CEQ regulations are important
to
[[Page 69778]]
internal Agency work, but bear little similarity to the Agency
procedures contemplated in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1507.3(b)).
Changes to Agency guidance in FSH 1909.15 currently involve
consultation with CEQ because the handbook does not differentiate
between NEPA guidance and ``procedures.'' This makes it more difficult
to update simple guidance.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1507.3)
direct Federal agencies to develop NEPA procedures to supplement the
CEQ regulations. The CEQ regulations require agencies to provide for
public notice and comment and CEQ consultation when developing and
revising Agency NEPA procedures.
Alternatives:
A possible alternative would be to have the CEQ revise its regulations
or seek legislative changes.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Codifying agency NEPA procedures in regulation, separate from guidance,
would make it easier for the Forest Service to provide guidance through
the agency directive system. General guidance and internal processes
would reside in the FSH 1909.15 handbook with references to both CEQ
and Forest Service NEPA procedures set out in the CFR. This will make
future revisions to internal agency guidance more responsive to new
ideas and information. Having the agency NEPA procedures at the same
level as the CEQ regulations would also give them equal status in
court.
New procedures and revisions to existing procedures would further
define how the agency must comply with NEPA where the CEQ regulations
lack clarity, when additional CEQ guidance has been issued, or when
there are more efficient or applicable procedures appropriate to Agency
decisionmaking. With more flexibility in how NEPA documents are
prepared, the NEPA process is expected to be more efficient and
responsive to decision maker needs.
Risks:
More NEPA procedural requirements could be added which would add to the
present processes. Also, given that some of the proposed procedures
would allow more flexibility and options to comply with NEPA, the
results could be a more complex set of regulations for the field to
understand.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 11/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: aweeks@fs.fed.us
RIN: 0596-AC49
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
24. SPECIAL AREAS; STATE-SPECIFIC INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA MANAGEMENT:
IDAHO
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
5 USC 553(e); 7 CFR 1.28
CFR Citation:
36 CFR 294
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
On October 5, 2006, the Governor of Idaho submitted a petition under
the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e))
and Agriculture Department regulation (7 CFR 1.28) to promulgate
regulations, in cooperation with the State, for management of 9.3
million acres of inventoried roadless areas within the State. After
review and recommendation by the Roadless Area Conservation National
Advisory Committee, the Secretary accepted the Governor's petition and
initiated a proposed rulemaking for the roadless areas in Idaho. The
proposed rulemaking would manage Idaho's inventoried roadless areas
under four main themes listed from most restrictive to least: Wildland
Recreation (1.4 million acres), Primitive (1.7 million acres),
Backcountry (5.5 million acres), and General Forest (0.5 million
acres). The proposed rulemaking also will establish three important
tribal and historical sites as ``Special Areas'' (0.2 million acres).
Road construction and reconstruction plus timber harvesting would be
prohibited in certain inventoried roadless areas on the Boise, Caribou-
Targhee, Clearwater, Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai (portions), Nez Perce,
Payette, Salmon-Challis, Sawtooth, and Wallowa-Whitman (portions)
National Forests in Idaho. Exceptions to the prohibitions would be
allowed for certain health, safety, valid existing rights, resource
protection, and ecological management needs.
Statement of Need:
The Department of Agriculture is committed to conserving and managing
roadless values and considers inventoried roadless areas an important
component of the National Forest System. The roadless rule has been the
subject of 10 lawsuits in Federal district courts in Idaho, Utah, North
Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and the District of Columbia. On July 14,
2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming found the
2001 roadless rule to be unlawful and ordered that the rule be
permanently enjoined. On May 13, 2005 the Forest Service promulgated
the State Petitions Rule.
The State Petitions Rule allowed Governors to voluntarily seek
establishment of or adjustment of management requirements for National
Forest System inventoried roadless areas within their States. If a
petition was not received within 18 months, inventoried roadless areas
would be guided by individual land management plans. In also
established the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee
(RACNAC) to make recommendations on State-petitions to the Secretary.
With the promulgation of the State Petitions Rule, the Tenth Circuit,
which was reviewing an appeal by intervenors of the Wyoming court's
decision, dismissed the case as moot. Under the guidance of the State
Petitions Rule the States of California, Idaho, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia filed a petition with the
Secretary. The Secretary instructed the Forest Service to enter into
rulemaking for North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Two
lawsuits were filed against the State Petitions Rule in the Federal
district court for the Northern District of California.
[[Page 69779]]
One suit was filed by the States of California, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Washington with the State of Montana being amicus curiae in support of
plaintiffs; and the States of Alaska and Idaho are amici curiae to
USDA. The other lawsuit was filed by a coalition of environmental
groups. On September 20, 2006, the Federal district court enjoined the
State Petitions Rule and reinstated the RACR. In an effort to again re-
enjoin the RACR, the State of Wyoming filed a second lawsuit in the
Federal district court for Wyoming on January 12, 2007. Oral hearing
for this lawsuit is schedule for October 19. With the reinstatement of
RACR, the Under Secretary announced that interested States could still
petition the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R.
Sec. 1.28.
On October 5, 2006, Idaho Governor James Risch resubmitted his petition
under these authorities. The RACNAC reviewed the petition and made
recommendations to the Secretary on December 19, 2006. On December 22,
2006, the Secretary directed the Forest Service to begin the rulemaking
process with the State.
Collaboratively working on the establishment of a State-specific
roadless rule for the petitioning State will allow the State the level
of management of inventoried roadless areas it seeks to best meet its
needs in balance with the Department's and Forest Service's goals for
the conserving and managing roadless values nationally. In addition, it
will allow for the management of these lands in that State without
being affected by other legal actions concerning the roadless rule or
State Petitions Rule.
Summary of Legal Basis:
On January 12, 2001, the Department of Agriculture promulgated the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) to provide for the conservation
and management of approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried
roadless areas within the National Forest System under the principles
of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The State of Idaho
petitioned the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R.
Sec. 1.28 for state-specific rules to replace this national rule in
that State.
Alternatives:
The Forest Service is preparing environmental impact statements in
support of the rulemaking effort. Besides the proposed rule, two
alternatives are being considered (1) continuation of the RACR for
management of these inventoried roadless areas, and (2) using existing
forest plans and future forest plan revisions to determine the
management of these areas.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Three alternatives have been analyzed for benefits, costs, and
distributional effects are: 2001 Roadless Rule, existing forest plan,
and the proposed rule are analyzed. A range of baseline conditions,
represented by the 2001 Rule and existing forest plans alternatives,
are adopted to characterize the mix of goods and services provided by
National Forests and Grasslands in the near future in the absence of
the proposed rule. The proposed rule is programmatic in nature,
consisting of direction for road construction, road reconstruction,
timber harvesting, and discretionary mineral activities, which would be
applied to future management activities on inventoried roadless areas
in Idaho. In general, the proposed rule does not affect the efficiency
of individual operations or activities (e.g., individual timber sale)
associated with forest resources and/or services, but may instead
affect the number or extent of opportunities as a function of
activities permitted on National Forest system lands. Because the
proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is
difficult to quantify the benefits under the different alternatives.
Risks:
The rule is programmatic in nature and would constrain certain
activities that would reduce roadless area characteristics. Reducing or
controlling the development of these lands will reduce the risk of
environmental effects associated with development activities like road
construction, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction. Therefore
soil, water, and air quality; sources of drinking water; diversity of
plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered,
proposed, candidate, and sensitive species dependent on large,
undisturbed areas of land; scenic quality; traditional cultural
properties and sacred sites; and other locally unique characteristics
would be maintained.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
State, Tribal
Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: aweeks@fs.fed.us
Related RIN: Related to 0596-AC58, Related to 0596-AC59, Related to
0596-AC60
RIN: 0596-AC62
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
25. SPECIAL AREAS; STATE-SPECIFIC INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA
MANAGEMENT: COLORADO
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation:
36 CFR 294
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
On April 11, 2007, Governor of Colorado Ritter submitted a petition
under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(e)) and Agriculture Department regulation (7 CFR 1.28) to
promulgate regulations, in cooperation with the State, for the
management of inventoried roadless areas within the State of Colorado.
After review and recommendation by the Roadless Area Conservation
National Advisory Committee, the Secretary accepted the Governor's
petition and initiated a proposed rulemaking for inventoried roadless
areas in Colorado. The proposed rulemaking would manage Colorado's
inventoried roadless areas by prohibiting road building and tree
cutting, with some exceptions, on 4.1 million acres of inventoried
roadless areas in Colorado. The 4.1 million acres reflect the most
updated IRA boundaries for Colorado, which incorporate planning rule
revisions since 2001 on several Colorado national forests. Inventoried
roadless areas that
[[Page 69780]]
are allocated to ski area special uses (approximately 10,000 acres)
would also be removed from roadless designation. Road construction and
reconstruction plus timber harvesting would be prohibited in
inventoried roadless areas, with some exceptions, on the Arapaho-
Roosevelt, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre, Gunnison, Manti-La Sal, Pike-San
Isabel, Rio Grande, Routt, San Juan, and White River National Forests
in Colorado. Exceptions to the prohibitions would be allowed for
certain health, safety, valid existing rights, resource protection, and
ecological management needs.
The goal of the Department is to have the State-Specific Rule for
Inventoried Roadless Areas in Colorado in place by September 2008.
Statement of Need:
The Department of Agriculture is committed to conserving and managing
roadless values and considers inventoried roadless areas an important
component of the National Forest System. The roadless rule has been the
subject of 10 lawsuits in Federal district courts in Idaho, Utah, North
Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and the District of Columbia. On July 14,
2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming found the
2001 roadless rule to be unlawful and ordered that the rule be
permanently enjoined. On May 13, 2005, the Forest Service promulgated
the State Petitions Rule. The State Petitions Rule allowed Governors to
voluntarily seek establishment of or adjustment of management
requirements for National Forest System inventoried roadless areas
within their States. If a petition was not received within 18 months,
inventoried roadless areas would be guided by individual land
management plans. In also established the Roadless Area Conservation
National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) to make recommendations on State-
petitions to the Secretary. With the promulgation of the State
Petitions Rule, the Tenth Circuit, which was reviewing an appeal by
intervenors of the Wyoming court's decision, dismissed the case as
moot. Under the guidance of the State Petitions Rule the States of
California, Idaho, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Virginia filed a petition with the Secretary. The Secretary instructed
the Forest Service to enter into rulemaking for North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Virginia. Two lawsuits were filed against the State
Petitions Rule in the Federal district court for the Northern District
of California.
One suit was filed by the States of California, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Washington with the State of Montana being amicus curiae in support of
plaintiffs; and the States of Alaska and Idaho are amici curiae to
USDA. The other lawsuit was filed by a coalition of environmental
groups. On September 20, 2006, the Federal district court enjoined the
State Petitions Rule and reinstated the roadless rule. In an effort to
again re-enjoin the roadless rule, the State of Wyoming filed a second
lawsuit in the Federal district court for Wyoming on January 12, 2007.
Oral hearing for this lawsuit is schedule for October 19. With the
reinstatement of roadless rule, the Under Secretary announced that
interested States could still petition the Secretary pursuant to 5
U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. Sec. 1.28. On November 13, 2006,
Colorado Governor Bill Owens submitted his petition under these
authorities. On April 11, 2007, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter
resubmitted the petition with amendments. The RACNAC reviewed the
petition and made recommendations to the Secretary on August 2, 2007.
Collaboratively working on the establishment of a State-specific
roadless rule for the petitioning State will allow the State the level
of management of inventoried roadless areas it seeks to best meet its
needs in balance with the Department's and Forest Service's goals for
the conserving and managing roadless values nationally. In addition, it
will allow for the management of these lands in that State without
being affected by other legal actions concerning the roadless rule or
State Petitions Rule.
Summary of Legal Basis:
On January 12, 2001, the Department of Agriculture promulgated the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule to provide for the conservation and
management of approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless
areas within the National Forest System under the principles of the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The State of Colorado has
petitioned the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and 7 C.F.R.
Sec. 1.28 for state-specific rules to replace this national rule.
Alternatives:
The Forest Service is preparing environmental impact statements in
support of the rulemaking effort. Besides the proposed rule, two
alternatives are being considered (1) continuation of the RACR for
management of these inventoried roadless areas, and (2) using existing
forest plans and future forest plan revisions to determine the
management of these areas.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
It is anticipated that this proposed rule will not be an economically
significant rule, and will not have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local
governments. This proposed rule is not expected to interfere with an
action taken or planned by another Agency nor raise new legal or policy
issues. This proposed rule will not alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients of such programs. Furthermore, the proposed
rule is programmatic in nature, consisting of direction for road
construction, road reconstruction, timber harvesting, special uses
including ski resorts, and discretionary mineral activities, which
would be applied to future management activities on inventoried
roadless areas in Colorado.
Risks:
The rule is programmatic in nature and would constrain certain
activities that would reduce roadless area characteristics. Reducing or
controlling the development of these lands will reduce the risk of
environmental effects associated with development activities like road
construction, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction. Therefore
soil, water, and air quality; sources of drinking water; diversity of
plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered,
proposed, candidate, and sensitive species dependent on large,
undisturbed areas of land; scenic quality; traditional cultural
properties and sacred sites; and other locally unique characteristics
would be maintained.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Rule 03/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State, Tribal
URL For More Information:
http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us. 
[[Page 69781]]
Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: aweeks@fs.fed.us
RIN: 0596-AC74
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
26. PLANNING SUBPART A - NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
5 USC 301; 16 USC 1604, 1614
CFR Citation:
36 CFR Part 219
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Forest Service is proposing to provide notice and seek comment from
the public on the 2005 planning rule (70 FR 1022) as published in the
Federal Register on January 5, 2005. This action responds to an order
dated March 30, 2007 by Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District
Court Judge in Citizens for Better Forestry et al. v. US DA (N.D.
Calif.)). The judge enjoined the USDA from implementation and
utilization of the 2005 planning rule until it provides notice and
comment and complies with APA, ESA, and NEPA. The rule, cost benefit
analysis, and civil rights impact analysis have been cleared by the
Department and OMB as documented in the January 5, 2005 Federal
Register notice.
This action is a continuation of the 2005 planning rule that describes
the National Forest System land management planning framework;
establishes requirements for sustainability of social, economic, and
ecological systems and developing, amending, revising, and monitoring
land management plans; and clarifies that land management plans under
this final rule, absent extraordinary circumstances, are strategic in
nature and are one stage in an adaptive cycle of planning for
management of National Forest System lands.
Statement of Need:
The Forest Service is providing notice and opportunity for comment on a
proposed rule for National Forest System land management planning, and
then adopting a final rule at 36 CFR 219, subpart A. This rulemaking is
the result of a U.S. district court order dated March 30, 2007, which
enjoined the United States Department of Agriculture from
implementation and utilization of the land management planning rule
published in 2005 (70 FR1023) until it complies with the court's order
regarding the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (Citizens for Better Forestry
et al. v. USDA, C.A. C05-1144 (N. D. Cal.)). The purpose of this
rulemaking is to respond to the court's ruling about notice and comment
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act by publishing the
2005 rule as a proposed rule. In addition, the Agency is preparing an
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act and will comply with the court's order regarding the Endangered
Species Act.
The Agency is committed to transparent rulemaking and public
participation, and provided a notice and comment period for the
proposed 2005 rule (December 6, 2002, 67 FR 72770). In the final 2005
rule, the Agency changed the provisions for timber management
requirements, changed the provisions for making changes to the
monitoring program, and added provisions for environmental management
system (EMS). The Environmental Management System provisions require
the Agency to define a structure and system of organizational
activities, responsibilities, practices, and procedures for carrying
out the Agency environmental policy. The court found that the proposed
rule did not provide sufficient notice to the public of these changes
to the final rule such that the final rule was not the logical
outgrowth of the proposed rule. Therefore, the Agency is providing
notice and seeking comment on a proposed rule that is essentially
identical to the 2005 final rule, including the changes made to the
final 2005 planning rule.
Regarding NEPA, the court further found that the 2005 planning rule did
not fit the Agency's categorical exclusion for servicewide
administrative procedures. That categorical exclusion, developed with
public participation, is a recognized method of NEPA compliance. Under
the court's order, however, further environmental analysis under NEPA
is required. The Agency published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register on May 11, 2007
(72 FR 26775), to start the public involvement process pursuant to
NEPA.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (88
Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of
1976 (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.), requires the Secretary to
promulgate regulations under the principles of the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 that set out the process for the
development and revision of land management plans (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)).
Alternatives:
The draft environmental impact statement accompanying the proposed rule
documents detailed analysis of the proposed rule and four other
alternatives. Those other alternatives are the 2000 planning rule, the
1982 planning rule, and two variations of the 2005 planning rule.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Annualized costs of implementing the proposed rule (2005 rule) have
been estimated and discounted at three percent and seven percent
discount rates for the period 2008 to 2022. Those discounted costs are
$99 million at three percent and $99.2 million at seven percent. This
represents an estimated annualized savings over the 2000 rule of $30
million at three percent and $28 million at seven percent.
Numerous non-quantifiable benefits are expected to result from the
final planning rule. The overall goal of the proposed rule is more
clearly based on the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) and
better describes the relationship of the MUSYA to sustainability. This
feature more clearly defines Agency responsibilities to weigh and
balance uses of NFS lands for the benefit of the American people. The
proposed rule is based on a stronger emphasis on working with the
public, other Federal agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and
others, and should result in more social satisfaction with Agency
efforts and
[[Page 69782]]
management. The incorporation of ecologically-based management
principles, improved monitoring and evaluation, and consideration of
science in planning, should result in a flexible process that reduces
the burden on both the public and the Agency. An efficient planning
process that addresses public concerns and leads to improved health of
public lands has value beyond the cost savings estimated in the
analysis. Therefore, it is highly likely that the proposed rule is
beneficial to the public interest.
Risks:
The Forest Service is responsible for managing the lands and resources
of the National Forest System (NFS), which include 193 million acres in
44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The NFS is composed of
155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, one national prairie, and
other miscellaneous lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Agriculture (the Secretary). The planning rule would establish
administrative procedures whereby land management plans for NFS units
are developed, revised, and amended.
The 2005 planning rule was developed to take advantage of the
experience gained from 25 years of implementing the National Forest
Management Act. The rule improves on both the 1982 and 2000 planning
rules. The findings from two reviews of the 2000 planning rule can be
summarized as follows: it has both definitions and analytical
requirements that are very complex, unclear, and, therefore, subject to
inconsistent implementation across the Agency; compliance with the
regulatory direction on such matters as ecological sustainability and
science consistency checks would be difficult, if not impossible, to
accomplish; and, the complexity of the 2000 rule makes it difficult and
expensive to implement. This newest planning rule is intended to
provide a planning process that is readily understood, is within the
Agency's capability to implement, is consistent with the capabilities
of National Forest System lands, recognizes the strategic programmatic
nature of planning, and meets the intent of the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) while making cost effective and efficient use of
resources allocated to the Agency for land management planning. Absent
this rule, the Agency would have to continue to use the 2000 rule with
all of its identified deficiencies.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action 11/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Andria Weeks
Regulatory Anaylst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
ATT: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202 260-6539
Email: aweeks@fs.fed.us
RIN: 0596-AC70
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
27. DELIVERY ENHANCEMENT FOR GUARANTEED LOANS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
5 USC 301; 7 USC 1926(a)(1); 7 USC 1932(a); 7 USC 8106
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 4279, subpart A; 7 CFR 4279, subpart B; 7 CFR 4287, subpart B; 7
CFR 4280, subpart B; 7 CFR 3575, subpart A
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Rural Development is proposing a unified guaranteed loan platform for
enhanced delivery of four existing Rural Development guaranteed loan
programs--Community Facility; Water and Waste Disposal; Business and
Industry; and Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency
Improvement Projects. The proposed rulemaking would eliminate the
existing loan guarantee regulations for these four programs and
consolidate them under a new, single part.
Statement of Need:
The proposed rule will consolidate certain provisions of the existing
regulations for guaranteed loans under the community facilities, water
and waste disposal, business and industry, and renewable energy systems
and energy efficiency improvement programs. The consolidation will
result in greater consistency among common program provisions, as well
as, increased management efficiency while reducing program losses.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, and section
9006 of the farm Security and Rural investment Act of 2002 (107 Pub. L.
171)
Alternatives:
Leave the existing regulations supporting the four Rural Development
guaranteed loan programs intact and unconsolidated, which requires
lenders and borrowers to be separately determined eligible and approved
for each of the four programs, and to be adept and knowledgeable of
each programs separate regulations and forms.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The Agency's benefit cost analysis indicates that the benefits derived
from the rule are reduced paper work and risk of loss to the
Government. The benefit cost analysis estimates that the consolidation
and streamlining program delivery will reduce paperwork costs by 30
percent for a savings of $1.3 million for lenders and borrowers. The
Government will benefit from reduced losses resulting from improved
program management and there could be some modest administrative cost
savings.
Risks:
The proposed rule would reduce project risk by implementing new
requirements for determining minimum project eligibility, including
certain debt coverage and loan to value ratio requirements.
The proposed rule would reduce institutional risk by establishing
criteria for approved and preferred lenders. With more stringent
eligibility requirements, including specific experience requirements,
the agency expects to benefit from preferred lenders seeking guarantees
on higher quality loans.
The proposed rule would reduce agency risk exposure by allowing
approved lenders to submit a low
[[Page 69783]]
documentation application, if the borrower meets increased financial
requirements for debt coverage and loan to value ratios and has a
credit score comparable to private commercial lending practices. The
maximum loan guarantee will be reduced by 10 percent when approved
lenders submit low documentation applications under $5 million.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/14/07 72 FR 52618
NPRM Comment Period End 11/13/07
Final Action 06/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Michael Foore
Program Advisor, Office of the Administrator
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0056
Fax: 202 690-4737
Email: michael.foore@wdc.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0570-AA41
RIN: 0570-AA65
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
28. RURAL BROADBAND ACCESS LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 107-171; 7 USC 901 et seq
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 1738
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
There has been more than $1.1 billion in loans for broadband deployment
with more than 1,000 rural communities that will receive broadband
services. Even with this level of success, the program needs to be
adjusted to better serve unserved or underserved communities. In
response, we are revising the broadband rule to address this and other
critical issues, and further facilitate the deployment of broadband
service in rural America as directed by Congress by: (1) Clearly
defining served, underserved markets based on service availability and
existing competitors and target unserved an underserved areas; (2)
Providing potential applicants with a clear definition of which
communities are eligible for funding; (3) Establishing a minimum data
transmission rate that the facilities financed must be able to deliver
to the consumer; (4) Establishing equity requirements that mitigate
risks; (5) Modifying market survey requirements based on service
territories and existing availability of service; and (6) Imposing new
time limits for build-out and deployment to ensure prudent use of loan
funds and timely delivery services to rural customers.
Statement of Need:
Since the Broadband Loan Program's inception, the Agency has faced and
continues to face significant challenges in administering the program,
including the fierce competitive nature of the broadband market, the
fact that many companies proposing to offer broadband service are
start-up organizations with limited resources, continually evolving
technology, and economic factors such as the higher cost of serving
rural communities. Because of these challenges, the Agency has been
reviewing the characteristics of the Broadband Loan Program and has
determined that modifications are required to accelerate the deployment
of broadband service to the rural areas of the country.
The Broadband Loan Program is important to the revitalization of our
rural communities and their economies. A lack of private capital has
been cited as a reason for slow broadband deployment. However, an
adequate supply of investment capital alone may not be sufficient to
universally deploy broadband facilities in rural America--primarily due
to the high cost of deployment outside of more densely populated areas.
Due to market uncertainties and risks associated with startup ventures,
non-federal sources of funding are restricting and raising the cost of
capital, particularly in costly rural markets. Better access to low
cost capital is a primary initiative of this program in facilitating as
increase in the rate of rural broadband deployment.
Summary of Legal Basis:
On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-171 (``Farm Bill'') was signed into law. Title VI of the
Farm Bill authorized the Agency to approve loans and loan guarantees
for the costs of construction, improvement, and acquisition of
facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural
communities.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The program costs associated with lending activity are relatively low.
The average subsidy rate since the programs inception is 2.4 percent,
or $24,000 in appropriated budget authority for every $1 million in
loans. The residents and businesses of rural communities are the
beneficiaries. Rural Development is responsible for helping rural
America transition from an agricultural base economy to a platform for
new business and economic opportunity. Rural Development seeks to
leverage its financial resources with private investment to facilitate
the development of the changing rural economy. The Broadband Loan
Program provides rural America with the platform on which to achieve
these goals. With access to the same advanced telecommunications
networks as its urban counterparts, especially broadband networks
designed to accommodate distance learning, telework and telemedicine,
rural America will eventually see improving educational opportunities,
health care, economies, safety and security, and ultimately higher
employment. The Agency shares the assessment of Congress, state and
local officials, industry representatives, and rural residents that
broadband service is a critical component to the future of rural
America. The Agency is committed to ensuring that rural America will
have access to affordable, reliable, broadband services, and to provide
a healthy, safe and prosperous place to live and work.
Risks:
Building broadband infrastructure in sparsely populated rural
communities is very capital intensive. The Broadband Loan Program
continues to face risk factors that pose challenges in ensuring that
proposed projects can and do deliver robust, affordable broadband
services to rural consumers. These factors include the sometimes
competitive nature of the broadband market, the fact that many
companies
[[Page 69784]]
proposing to offer broadband service are start-up organizations with
limited resources, rapidly evolving technology, and economic factors
such as the higher cost of serving rural communities. While many of the
smallest rural communities understand the importance of broadband
infrastructure to their economic development, they often have
difficulty attracting service providers to their communities.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/11/07 72 FR 26742
NPRM Comment Period End 07/10/07
Final Action 03/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Michele L Brooks
Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis
Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service
Room 5159 South Building
Stop 1522
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 690-1078
Fax: 202 720-8435
Email: michele.brooks@usda.gov
RIN: 0572-AC06
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S
[[Page 69785]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Enhancing long-term economic growth is a central focus of the
President's policies and priorities. The mission of the Department of
Commerce is to promote job creation, economic growth, technological
competitiveness, sustainable development, and improve living standards
for all Americans by working in partnership with businesses,
universities, communities, and workers to:
Build for the future and promote U.S. economic competitiveness
in the global marketplace by strengthening and safeguarding
the Nation's economic infrastructure;
Keep America competitive with cutting-edge science and
technology and an unrivaled information base; and
Provide effective management and stewardship of our Nation's
resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic
opportunities.
The DOC mission statement, containing our three strategic themes,
provides the vehicle for understanding the Department's aims, how they
interlock, and how they are to be implemented through our programs.
This statement was developed with the intent that it serve as both a
statement of departmental philosophy and as the guiding force behind
the Department's programs.
The importance that this mission statement and these strategic themes
have for the Nation is amplified by the vision they pursue for
America's communities, businesses, and families. Commerce is the
smallest Cabinet agency, yet our presence is felt, and our
contributions are found, in every State.
The DOC touches Americans, daily, in many ways--we make possible the
weather reports that all of us hear every morning; we facilitate the
technology that all of us use in the workplace and in the home each
day; we support the development, gathering, and transmitting of
information essential to competitive business; we make possible the
diversity of companies and goods found in America's (and the world's)
marketplace; and we support environmental and economic health for the
communities in which Americans live.
The DOC has a clear and powerful vision for itself, for its role in the
Federal Government, and for its roles supporting the American people,
now and in the future. We confront the intersection of trade promotion,
civilian technology, economic development, sustainable development, and
economic analysis, and we want to provide leadership in these areas for
the Nation.
We work to provide programs and services that serve our country's
businesses, communities, and families, as initiated and supported by
the President and the Congress. We are dedicated to making these
programs and services as effective as possible, while ensuring that
they are being delivered in the most cost-effective ways. We seek to
function in close concert with other agencies having complementary
responsibilities so that our collective impact can be most powerful. We
seek to meet the needs of our customers quickly and efficiently, with
programs, information, and services they require and deserve.
As a permanent part of the Federal Government, but serving an
Administration and Congress that can vary with election results, we
seek to serve the unchanging needs of the Nation, according to the
priorities of the President and the Congress. The President's
priorities for the Department range from issues concerning the economy
to the environment. For example, the President directs the Department
to promote electronic commerce activities; encourage open and free
trade; represent American business interests abroad; and assist small
businesses to expand and create jobs. We are able to address these
priorities effectively by functioning in accordance with the
legislation that supports our programs and by working closely with the
President and the committees in Congress that have programmatic and
financial oversight for our programs.
The DOC also promotes and expedites American exports, helps nurture
business contacts abroad, protects U.S. firms from unfair foreign
competition, and makes how-to-export information accessible to small
and mid-sized companies throughout the Nation, thereby ensuring that
U.S. market opportunities span the globe.
The DOC encourages development in every community, clearing the way for
private-sector growth by building and rebuilding economically deprived
and distressed communities. We promote minority entrepreneurship to
establish businesses that frequently anchor neighborhoods and create
new job opportunities. We work with the private sector to enhance
competitive assets.
As the Nation looks to revitalize its industries and communities, the
DOC works as a partner with private entities to build America with an
eye on the future. Through technology, research and development, and
innovation, we are making sure America continues to prosper in the
short term, while also helping industries prepare for long-term
success.
The DOC's considerable information capacities help businesses
understand clearly where our national and world economies are going and
take advantage of that knowledge by planning the road ahead. Armed with
the Department's economic and demographic statistics, businesses can
undertake new ventures, investments, and expansions that make our
economy grow.
The DOC has instituted programs and policies that lead to cutting-edge,
competitive, and better paying jobs. We work every day to boost
exports, to deregulate business, to help smaller manufacturers battle
foreign competition, to advance the technologies critical to our future
prosperity, to invest in our communities, and to fuse economic and
environmental goals.
The DOC is American business' surest ally in job creation, serving as a
vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and its Cabinet-level voice.
The Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations that
implement these policy and program priorities, several of which involve
regulation of the private sector by the Department.
Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The vast majority of the Department's programs and activities do not
involve regulation. Of the Department's 12 primary operating units,
only the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will be
planning actions that are considered the ``most important'' significant
preregulatory or regulatory action for fiscal year 2008. During the
next year, NOAA plans to publish four rulemaking actions that are
designated as Regulatory Plan actions. Further information on these
actions is provided below.
Though not principally a regulatory agency, the DOC has long been a
leader in advocating and using market-oriented regulatory approaches in
lieu of traditional command-and-control regulations when such
approaches offer a better alternative. All regulations are designed and
implemented to maximize societal benefits while placing the
[[Page 69786]]
smallest possible burden on those being regulated.
The DOC is also refocusing on its regulatory mission by taking into
account, among other things, the President's regulatory principles. To
the extent permitted by law, all preregulatory and regulatory
activities and decisions adhere to the Administration's statement of
regulatory philosophy and principles, as set forth in section 1 of
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, we have made bold and dramatic
changes, never being satisfied with the status quo. We have emphasized,
initiated, and expanded programs that work in partnership with the
American people to secure the Nation's economic future. At the same
time, we have downsized, cut regulations, closed offices, and
eliminated programs and jobs that are not part of our core mission. The
bottom line is that, after much thought and debate, we have made many
hard choices needed to make this Department ``state of the art.''
The Department 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 the Department afford the public
the maximum possible opportunity to participate in departmental
rulemakings, even where public participation is not required by law.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) establishes
and administers Federal policy for the conservation and management of
the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. It provides a
variety of essential environmental services vital to public safety and
to the Nation's economy, such as weather forecasts and storm warnings.
It is a source of objective information on the state of the
environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving the departmental
goal of promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global
environment.
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with
environmental stewardship, the Department, 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 US economy while
minimizing any economic dislocation necessary to ensure long term
economic growth. The Department 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 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 Nation's 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.
The Administration is committed to an environmental strategy that
promotes sustainable economic development and rejects the false choice
between environmental goals and economic growth. The intent is to have
the Government's economic decisions guided by a comprehensive
understanding of the environment. The Department, 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 and other societal decisions can
be made.
In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include: rebuilding
and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market based ecosystem
approaches to management; increasing the populations of depleted,
threatened, or endangered species of marine mammals by implementing
recovery plans that provide for their recovery while still allowing for
economic and recreational opportunities; promoting healthy coastal
ecosystems by ensuring that economic development is managed in ways
that maintain biodiversity and long-term productivity for sustained
use; and modernizing navigation and positioning services. In the
environmental assessment and prediction area, goals include:
modernizing the National Weather Service; implementing reliable
seasonal and interannual climate forecasts to guide economic planning;
providing science-based policy advice on options to deal with very
long-term (decadal to centennial) changes in the environment; and
advancing and improving short-term warning and forecast services for
the entire environment.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of
fishery resources in the U.S. 3- to 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone.
Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans to issue in
fiscal year 2008, a number of the preregulatory and regulatory actions
will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is unknown,
since they are usually initiated by the actions of eight regional
Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are responsible for preparing
fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for drafting
implementing regulations for each managed fishery. Once a rulemaking is
triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act places stringent
deadlines upon NMFS by which it must exercise its rulemaking
responsibilities.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is the primary legal authority for
federal regulation to conserve and manage fishery resources,
establishes eight regional FMCs, responsible for preparing FMPs and FMP
amendments. NMFS issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP
amendments. FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing
fishing opportunities on health 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 allocating the resource through individual transferable quotas,
which can be sold on the open market to other participants
[[Page 69787]]
or those wishing access. Quotas set on sound scientific information,
whether as a total fishing limit for a species in a fishery or as a
share assigned to each vessel participant, enable stressed stocks to
rebuild. Other measures include staggering fishing seasons or limiting
gear types to avoid gear conflicts on the fishing grounds, and
establishing seasonal and area closures to protect fishery stocks.
The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best
scientific information available, make the judgments needed to
determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional
management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the
national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process,
including the selection of the preferred management measures,
constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP,
together with draft implementing regulations and supporting
documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national
standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of
the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to
amending an existing approved FMP.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains ten national standards against which
fishery management measures are judged. NMFS has supplemented the
standards with guidelines interpreting each standard, and has updated
and added to those guidelines. One of the national standards requires
that management measures, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid
unnecessary duplication. Under the guidelines, NMFS will not approve
management measures submitted by an FMC unless the fishery is in need
of management. Together, the standards and the guidelines correspond to
many of the Administration's principles of regulation as set forth in
section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866. One of the national standards
establishes a qualitative equivalent to the Executive Order's ``net
benefits'' requirement--one of the focuses of the Administration's
statement of regulatory philosophy as stated in section 1(a) of the
Executive Order.
On January 17, 2007, the President signed into law the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA).
This important new law is identified by the President as one of his
priority actions in the U.S. Ocean Plan. The enactment of the law
reaffirms the importance of the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but
more importantly, it implements important groundbreaking provisions
that could enhance fisheries management. The new measures implemented
by this law would work to end overfishing; promote market-based
management approaches; improve science by providing a stronger role for
peer review and for the Councils' Science and Statistical Committees
(SSC) in decision-making, and improving the collection of accurate and
precise fishing data; and enhance international cooperation by
addressing Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and bycatch
of protected living marine resources. NMFS will be initiating several
rulemakings in the coming year to implement these important provisions.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the authority
for the conservation and management of marine mammals under U.S.
jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take
of marine mammals. Exceptions include the collection of wild animals
for scientific research or public display or to enhance the survival of
a species or stock. NMFS initiates rulemakings under the MMPA to
establish a management regime to reduce marine mammal mortalities and
injuries as a result of interactions with fisheries. The Act also
established the Marine Mammal Commission, which makes recommendations
to the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and the Interior and
other Federal officials on protecting and conserving marine mammals.
The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to allow for takings
incidental to commercial fishing operations, to provide certain
exemptions for subsistence and scientific uses, and to require the
preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters
under U.S. jurisdiction.
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the conservation
of species that are determined to be ``endangered'' or ``threatened,''
and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these species depend.
The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
jointly administer the provision in the Act. 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 1,310 listed species found in part or entirely
in the United States and its waters, NMFS has jurisdiction over
approximately 60 species. NMFS' rulemaking actions are focused on
determining whether any species under its responsibility is an
endangered or threatened species and whether those species must be
added to the list of protected species. NMFS is also responsible for
designating, reviewing, and revising critical habitat for any listed
species. In addition, under the ESA's procedural framework, federal
agencies consult with NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded,
or carried out by that agency that may affect one of the listed species
or designated critical habitat, or is likely to jeopardize proposed
species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat that is under
NMFS' jurisdiction.
NOAA's Regulatory Plan Actions
While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the
level necessary to be included in the Department's Regulatory Plan,
NMFS is undertaking four actions that rise to the level of ``most
important'' of the Departments significant regulatory actions, and thus
are included in this year's Regulatory Plan. Three actions implement
provisions of the Magnuson-Steven Reauthorization Act (MSRA), and are
summarized below:
``Provide Guidance for the Limited Access Privilege Program Provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Reauthorization Act of
2006'' -- This action would provide regions with interpretive guidance
on the use of Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPP) as fishery
management tools. The guidance is intended to assist the fishery
management councils and NMFS regional offices in developing and
implementing LAPPS.
``Guidance for Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures to End
Overfishing'' -- In this action, NMFS would implement provisions that
require fishery management plans to establish annual catch limits
(ACLs), including regulations and annual specifications, at a level
such that overfishing does not occur in a fishery. In addition, this
action would implement measures to ensure accountability.
``Certification of Nations Whose Fishing Vessels Are Engaged in IUU
Fishing or Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources'' -- In this
action, NMFS would establish a process of identification and
certification to address Illegal, Unreported, or
[[Page 69788]]
Unregulated (IUU) activities and bycatch of protected species in
international fisheries. Nations whose fishing vessels engage, or have
been engaged, in IUU fishing or bycatch of protected living marine
resources would be identified in a biennial report to Congress. NMFS
would subsequently certify whether identified nations have taken
appropriate corrective action with respect to the activities of its
fishing vessels, as required under section 403 of MSRA.
In addition to actions related to the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization
Act, NMFS is developing one action under the authority of the ESA
entitled ``Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Implement Speed Restrictions
to Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with North Atlantic Right
Whales.'' In this action, NMFS proposes to impose speed restrictions on
ships in certain areas during certain times of the year in an attempt
to reduce mortalities to North Atlantic right whales as a result of
collisions with vessels, which account for more confirmed right whale
deaths than any other human-related activity. The strategy addresses
the lack of recovery of the endangered North Atlantic right whale by
reducing the likelihood of ship strike mortalities to the species. NMFS
has developed a framework of proposed, new operational measures for the
shipping industry as an element of this strategy, including
consideration of routing and speed restrictions. These operational
measures would be limited to areas and times when North Atlantic right
whales and ships overlap to reduce the likelihood of ship strikes to
the extent practicable.
NOAA's four Regulatory Plan actions support several of the President's
priorities as stated in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Specifically, NMFS'
regulatory actions implement the President's ongoing effort to combat
international illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities
through its proposed identification and certification process; support
the goal to use market-based systems for fisheries management by using
dedicated access privileges as fishery management tools; and support
the President's overall goal of enhancing conservation of marine
mammals, sharks and sea turtles, which are species that are of special
concern and that face a variety of threats from human actives.
At this time, NOAA is unable to determine the aggregate cost of the
identified Regulatory Plan actions as the majority of these actions are
currently under development. For the one action where an economic
analysis has been completed (right whale ship collision rule), NOAA
anticipates the costs associated with the rule could be as much as $116
million.
Bureau of Industry and Security
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) promotes U.S. national and
economic security and foreign policy interests by managing and
enforcing the Department's security-related trade and competitiveness
programs. BIS plays a key role in challenging issues involving national
security and nonproliferation, export growth, and high technology. The
Bureau's continuing major challenge is combating the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction while furthering the growth of U.S.
exports, which are critical to maintaining our leadership in an
increasingly competitive global economy. BIS strives to be the leading
innovator in transforming U.S. strategic trade policy and programs to
adapt to the changing world.
Major Programs and Activities
The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) provide for export controls
on dual-use goods and technology (primarily commercial goods that have
potential military applications) not only to fight proliferation, but
also to pursue other national security, short supply, and foreign
policy goals (such as combating terrorism). Simplifying and updating
these controls in light of the end of the Cold War has been a major
accomplishment of BIS.
BIS is also responsible for:
Enforcing the export control and antiboycott provisions of the
Export Administration Act (EAA), as well as other statutes
such as the Fastener Quality Act. The EAA is enforced
through a variety of administrative, civil, and criminal
sanctions.
Analyzing and protecting the defense industrial and technology
base, pursuant to the Defense Production Act and other
laws. As the Defense Department increases its reliance on
dual-use high technology goods as part of its cost-cutting
efforts, ensuring that we remain competitive in those
sectors and subsectors is critical to our national
security.
Helping Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, and other newly
emerging countries develop effective export control
systems. The effectiveness of U.S. export controls can be
severely undercut if ``rogue states'' or terrorists gain
access to sensitive goods and technology from other
supplier countries.
Working with former defense plants in the Newly Independent
States to help make a successful transition to profitable
and peaceful civilian endeavors. This involves helping
remove unnecessary obstacles to trade and investment and
identifying opportunities for joint ventures with U.S.
companies.
Assisting U.S. defense enterprises to meet the challenge of
the reduction in defense spending by converting to civilian
production and by developing export markets. This work
assists in maintaining our defense industrial base as well
as preserving jobs for U.S. workers.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
29. PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR THE LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAM
PROVISIONS OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2006
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1801 et seq.
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 600
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule will provide regions with interpretive guidance on the use of
Limited Access Privilege Programs as fishery management tools. The
guidance is intended to assist the fishery management councils and NMFS
regional offices in developing and implementing LAPPS.
Statement of Need:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intends to proposed this rulemaking to
create national guidance for the new Limited Access Privilege Program
(LAPP) provisions found in section 303(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
[[Page 69789]]
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization
Act of 2006 (MSRA). The LAPP provisions provide new incentive-based
options for fisheries management. NMFS has received numerous requests
from constituent groups, Regional Fishery Management Councils
(Councils), and Congress to develop such guidance. This guidance will
assist Councils develop LAPPs with full consideration of national
perspectives and concerns.
Summary of Legal Basis:
NMFS is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking
authority under the MSA. 5 U.S.C. 561, 16 U.S.C. 773, et seq., and 16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Alternatives:
Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development,
no alternatives have been formulated or analyzed at this time.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Because this rule is presently in the beginning stages of development,
no analysis has been completed at this time to asses the amount that
would be saved or imposed as a result of this rule. However, this rule
does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact threshold and
thus has not been determined to be economically significant under EO
12866.
Risks:
Without this rulemaking, there is a risk that new LAPP programs will be
developed that do not meet the requirements of section 303(A), and
therefore may detrimentally impact the fish stocks that they are
designed to manage, the fisheries, or the human environment. Among
other things, reducing capacity; and promote fishing safety, fishery
conservation and management, and social and economic benefits. Without
guidance, LAPP programs may be developed that do not meet these
requirements. Properly designed LAPPs mitigate environmental risk,
ensure fair and equitable initial allocations, prevent excessive
shares, protect the basic cultural and social framework of the
fisheries and fishing communities, and contribute to public safety and
economic prosperity.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
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
RIN: 0648-AV48
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
30. CERTIFICATION OF NATIONS WHOSE FISHING VESSELS ARE ENGAGED
IN IUU FISHING OR BYCATCH OF PROTECTED LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1801 et seq; 16 USC 1826d to 1826k
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 300
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Statutory, January 12, 2009, Identification of nations whose
vessels are engaged (or have been engaged in) illegal, unreported or
unregulated fishing.
Abstract:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is establishing a process
of identification and certification to address Illegal, Unreported, or
Unregulated (IUU) activities and bycatch of protected species in
international fisheries. Nations whose fishing vessels engage, or have
been engaged, in IUU fishing or bycatch of protected living marine
resources would be identified in a biennial report to Congress, as
required under section 403 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006. NMFS would
subsequently certify whether identified nations have taken appropriate
corrective action with respect to the activities of its fishing
vessels, as required under section 403 of MSRA.
Statement of Need:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes regulations to set forth
identification and certification procedures for nations whose vessels
engage in illgeal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing activities
or bycatch of protected living marine resources pursuant to the High
Seas Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection Act).
Specifically, the Moratorium Protection Act requires the Secretary of
Commerce to identify in a biennial report to Congress those foreign
nations whose vessels are engaged in IUU fishing or fishing that
results in bycatch of protected living marine resources. The Moratorium
Protection Act also requires the establishment of procedures to certify
whether nations identified in the biennial report are taking
appropriate corrective actions to address IUU fishing or bycatch of
protected living marine resources by fishing vessels of that nation.
Based upon the outcome of the certification procedures developed in
this rulemaking, nations could be subject to import prohibitions on
certain fisheries products and other measures under the authority
provided in the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act if the are
not positively certified by the Secretary of Commerce.
Summary of Legal Basis:
NOAA is proposing these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking
authority under sections 609 and 610 of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing
Moratorium Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1826j-k), as amended by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization
Act.
Alternatives:
NMFS is currently in the process of developing alternatives, and will
provide this information at a later date.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Because this rule is under development, NMFS does not currently have
estimates of the amount of product that is imported into the United
States from other nations whose vessels are engaged in illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing or bycatch of protected
living marine resources. Therefore, quantification of the economic
impacts of this rulemaking is not possible at this time. This
rulemaking does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact
threshold and thus has not been
[[Page 69790]]
determined to be economically significant under EO 12866.
Risks:
The risks associated with not pursuing the proposed rulemaking include
allowing IUU fishing activities and/or bycatch of protected living
marine resources by foreign vessels to continue without an effective
tool to aid in combating such activities.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 06/11/07 72 FR 32052
ANPRM Comment Period End 07/26/07
NPRM 01/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Dr. Rebecca Lent
Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
501 West Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
Phone: 562 980-4001
RIN: 0648-AV51
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
31. GUIDANCE FOR ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS (ACLS) AND ACCOUNTABILITY
MEASURES (AMS) TO END OVERFISHING
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1853
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 600.310
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Section 104(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA), requires that in fishing
year 2010, for fisheries determined by the Secretary to be subject to
overfishing, and in fishing year 2011, for all other fisheries, that
fishery management plans establish ACLs, including regulations and
annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur
in a fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.
The National Marine Fisheries Service intends to prepare guidance on
how to establish adequate ACLs and AMs by revising its National
Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310. This is because NS1 of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act states that ``Conservation and management
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States
fishing industry.''
Statement of Need:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is developing guidance for ending
overfishing and rebuilding overfished fish stocks. NMFS takes this
action to ensure that fish stocks managed by Federal fishery management
plans (FMPs) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) implement annual catch limits
(ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) to ensure that overfishing is
prevented. ACLs and AMs are required by fishing year 2010, for all
stocks undergoing overfishing, and by 2011, for all stocks.
Summary of Legal Basis:
NOAA is proposing these regulations pursuant to the MSRA of 2006 (P.L.
109-479). This includes a new required provision that any FMP shall
``establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan
(including a multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual
specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the
fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.'' Provisions and
guidance related to overfishing best fit under the current National
Standard 1 which states: ``Conservation and management measures shall
prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum
yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.''
Alternatives:
NMFS is currently in the process of developing alternatives, and will
provide more complete information at a later date. Preliminary
alternatives outlined in the Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement include no action, developing
performance standards that ACLs and AMs must meet but do not provide
guidance on specific mechanisms, and finally develop ACL and AM
guidelines that provide performance standards that ACLs must meet.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
This rule does not meet the $100 million annual economic impact
threshold and thus has not been determined to be economically
significant under EO 12866. Specific benefits and costs from having ACL
and AM mechanisms and actual ACLs and AMs for various fisheries will
not be known until ACLs and AMs are implemented in 2010, for stocks
undergoing overfishing, and by 2011, for all stocks. Regional Fishery
Management Councils, and NMFS, in the case of Atlantic highly migratory
species, will perform environmental and socioeconomic analyses to
describe specific effects for their fisheries once they determine what
ACLs and AMs are needed for each stock. In general, ending overfishing
immediately, rather than allowing it to continue would reduce short-
term revenues for a brief period, but increase revenues at a
sustainable level for the fishery earlier.
Risks:
Overfishing still occurs at various levels in 48 fisheries in U.S.
waters, although NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils have
made significant improvements in recent years. A priority in the MSRA
is to strengthen the Act to ensure an end to overfishing. Without this
rulemaking, there is a risk that there will be more instances of
overfishing, which would delay rebuilding. By implementing ACLs and
AMs, mechanisms will be in place to address overfishing more quickly,
thus ensuring the timely rebuilding of overfished stocks.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 11/00/07
NPRM Comment Period End 12/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
[[Page 69791]]
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
RIN: 0648-AV60
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
32. RIGHT WHALE SHIP STRIKE REDUCTION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1361
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 224
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
These regulations would establish speed restrictions to reduce the
likelihood of North Atlantic right whale mortality as a result of
collisions with vessels. Restrictions would be limited to areas and
times when North Atlantic right whales and ships overlap to reduce the
likelihood of ship strikes to the extent practicable.
Statement of Need:
The North Atlantic right whale population is depleted from past levels.
Collisions with vessels are the greatest known human threat to right
whales. NMFS is required under the ESA and MMPA to develop actions to
recover this species. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) proposed to establish speed restrictions on
vessels 65 ft (19.8m) or greater in overall length in certain locations
and at certain times of the year along the East Coast of the United
States to reduce this threat. The purpose of these proposed regulatory
measures is to reduce the likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to
endangered North Atlantic right whales that result from collisions with
ships.
Summary of Legal Basis:
NOAA proposed these regulations pursuant to its rulemaking authority
under Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) section 112(a) (16 U.S.C.
1382(a)), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 11(f) (16 U.S.C.
1540(f)). These proposed regulations also are consistent with the
purpose of the ESA ``to provide a program for the conservation of [. .
.] endangered species'' and ``the policy of Congress that all Federal
departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species [. .
.] and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes
of [the ESA].'' 16 U.S.C. 1531(b),(c).
Alternatives:
NMFS identified five alternatives to the proposed action. Alternative 1
is No Action (Status Quo) in which NMFS would continue to implement
existing measures and programs, largely nonregulatory, to reduce the
likelihood of mortality from ship strikes. Alternative 2 includes all
elements of Alternative 1 and involves use of Dynamically Managed Areas
(DMA), which consists of certain vessel speed restrictions applying
only when and where right whale sightings occur. Alternative 3 is
vessel speed restrictions in designated areas. It includes all elements
of Alternative 1 and implements large scale speed restrictions
throughout the range of North Atlantic right whales. Alternative 4 is
the use of recommended shipping routes. It includes all the elements of
Alternative 1 and relies on altering some current vessel patterns to
move vessels away from areas where whales are known to congregate.
Alternative 5 is a combination that includes all elements of
Alternatives 1 to 4. Alternative 6 (the proposed alternative) includes
a combination of operational measures (routing measures and speed
restrictions). The principal difference between Alternatives 5 and 6 is
that Alternative 6 does not include large scale speed restrictions (as
identified in Alternative 3) but instead relies on speed restrictions
in much smaller Seasonally Managed Areas.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Benefits:
The benefits of effective measures to reduce the risk of right whale
mortality caused by ship strikes are expected to be considerable.
Because ship strikes are the human activity that pose the greatest
known threat to right whales, adopting effective measures to reduce the
incidences of ship strikes will aid in the recovery of this highly
endangered species. However, monetary estimates of these benefits are
currently unavailable; therefore, the discussion of these benefits
specific to right whales is descriptive.
Costs:
The estimated costs associated with the speed restrictions are being
analyzed and will be provided in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement and in the accompanying Economic Analysis.
Risks:
The North Atlantic right whale is in danger of extinction. Absent
effective action to reduce fatal ship strikes and other sources of
mortality and injuries caused by human activity, the North Atlantic
right whale population faces a risk of continued decline.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 06/01/04 69 FR 30857
ANPRM Comment Period
Extended 07/09/04 69 FR 41446
ANPRM Comment Period
Extended 09/13/04 69 FR 55135
NPRM 06/26/06 71 FR 36299
Comment Period Extended 08/14/06 71 FR 46440
NPRM Comment Period End 08/25/06
Comment Period End 10/05/06
Final Action 12/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Public Compliance Cost:
Initial Cost: $0
Yearly Recurring Cost: $116,000,000
Base Year for Dollar Estimates: 2005
URL For More Information:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pr2
[[Continued on page 69793]]