![[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 69893-69942]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10de07-37]
[[pp. 69893-69942]]
INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2007 REGULATORY PLAN
[[Continued from page 69892]]
[[Page 69892]]
security and domestic and foreign commerce.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the Agency's
responsibility of ensuring the availability of adequate and efficient
water transportation services for American shippers and consumers. To
advance these objectives, MARAD issues regulations, which are
principally administrative and interpretive in nature, when
appropriate, in order to provide a net benefit to the U.S. maritime
industry.
MARAD's regulatory priorities a re to update existing regulations and
to reduce unnecessary burden on the public.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has
responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA administers
regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation
law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate Administrator for Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory programs under the Federal
pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
PHMSA will continue to work toward the elimination of deaths and
injuries associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by
pipeline and other transportation modes. We will use data to focus our
efforts on the prevention of high-risk incidents, particularly those of
high consequence to people and the environment. PHMSA will use all
available agency tools, in particular its enterprise approach, to
assess data; develop a consensus approach to standard setting, and
regulation if necessary; target enforcement efforts; and enhance
outreach, public education, and training to promote safety outcomes.
For maximum effectiveness, we will work closely with other DOT safety
agencies and other federal, State and local agencies to bring together
stakeholders who can contribute to safety solutions.
Over the coming year, PHMSA will focus its safety efforts on the
resolution of highest priority risks, including those posed by the air
transportation of hazardous materials and bulk transportation of high
hazard materials. For example, to enhance aviation safety, PHMSA plans
to propose enhanced packaging, hazard communication, and handling
requirements for the transportation of batteries of all types, in order
to reduce fire risk caused by short-circuiting or accidental activation
of batteries contained in equipment (2137-AE27). To address the risks
posed by the bulk transportation of high-risk hazardous materials,
PHMSA is working with FRA to develop effective strategies for
maintaining tank car integrity during rail incidents, with a particular
focus on the containment of lethal compressed gases in high pressure
tank cars, and is supporting efforts to develop effective industry
practices for safe loading and unloading of bulk hazmat containers
(2130-AB69). Additionally, to address the need for an overall national
program to enhance rail security, we are working with FRA and TSA to
address the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials
transported in commerce by rail. Specifically, we would require rail
carriers to compile annual data on certain shipments of explosive,
toxic by inhalation, and radioactive materials, use the data to analyze
safety and security risks along rail routes where those materials are
transported, assess alternative routing options, and make routing
decisions based on those assessments. We would also clarify rail
carriers' responsibility to address in their security plans issues
related to en route storage and delays in transit. In addition, we
would adopt a new requirement for rail carriers to inspect placarded
hazardous materials rail cars for signs of tampering or suspicious
items, including improvised explosive devices (2137-AE02).
A major priority for the hazardous materials program will be to
eliminate regulatory barriers to the introduction and use of new
technologies, while ensuring the continued safety of the Nation's
transportation system. A major challenge for PHMSA is to facilitate
technological development while ensuring the safe transportation of
hazardous materials that are essential to such development. To this
end, PHMSA is leading an international effort to develop standards for
the safe transport of fuel cell cartridges and systems--an essential
step in the market introduction of these emerging alternative fuel
technologies--and expects to propose to permit airline passengers to
hand-carry small, consumer application fuel cell systems aboard
passenger planes provided the fuel cell systems meet certain
performance standards (2137-AE19).
PHMSA will continue to look for ways to reduce the regulatory burden on
hazardous materials shippers and carriers, consistent with our overall
safety goals. For example, PHMSA is conducting a comprehensive review
of special permits to identify those with demonstrated safety records
that should be adopted as regulations of general applicability. We will
continue to review regulatory standards to ensure they are necessary,
easy to understand, contemporary and enforceable. In particular, PHMSA
is considering revisions to the list of hazardous materials that
require development and implementation of a security plan to address
security risks during transportation in commerce. PHMSA expects to
propose to include only those materials that pose a significant
security threat in transportation; narrowing the list will reduce
regulatory burdens on both shippers and carriers while continuing
security planning requirements for high-risk materials (2137-AE22).
Over the next year, PHMSA expects to complete its integrity management
initiative by adding integrity management regulations applicable to gas
distribution pipelines. Integrity management regulations require
pipeline operators to establish risk-based programs that focus
increased safety attention on portions of pipeline posing the highest
risk. This increased attention includes additional physical inspection.
Because each distribution pipeline is located in the populated areas it
serves, the operator of the distribution pipeline would include the
entire pipeline in its integrity management program. The intent is to
reduce the overall risk associated with operation (2137-AE15).
In addition, PHMSA will continue work on addressing currently
unregulated rural pipelines that operate at low stress levels. PHMSA
plans to extend safety regulation to pipelines in environmentally
sensitive areas and began collecting data on the remaining rural
pipelines. PHMSA will also consider extending the regulations
applicable to the remaining unregulated rural low stress pipelines
(2137-AD98).
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) seeks to
identify and facilitate solutions to the challenges and opportunities
facing America's transportation system through:
[[Page 69893]]
coordination, facilitation, and review of the Department's
research and development programs and activities;
providing multi-modal expertise in transportation and
logistics research, analysis, strategic planning, systems
engineering and training;
advancement, and research and development, of innovative
technologies, including intelligent transportation systems;
comprehensive transportation statistics research, analysis,
and reporting;
education and training in transportation and transportation-
related fields; and
managing the activities of the John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center.
Through its Bureau of Transportation Statistics, RITA collects,
compiles, analyzes, and makes accessible information on the Nation's
transportation system. RITA collects airline financial, traffic, and
operating statistical data, including on-time flight performance data.
This information gives the Government consistent and comprehensive
economic and market data on airline operations and is used in
supporting policy initiatives, negotiating international bilateral
aviation agreements, awarding international route authorities, and
meeting international treaty obligations.
Through its Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office
(ITS/JPO), RITA develops new regulations as appropriate, in
coordination with OST and other DOT operating administrations, to
enable deployment of ITS research and technology results.
Through its Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, RITA provides
a comprehensive range of engineering expertise, and qualitative and
quantitative assessment services, focused on applying, maintaining and
increasing the technical body of knowledge to support DOT operating
administration regulatory activities.
Through its Transportation Safety Institute, RITA designs, develops,
conducts and evaluates training and technical assistance programs in
transportation safety and security to support DOT operating
administration regulatory implementation and enforcement activities.
RITA's regulatory priorities are to: assist OST and all DOT operating
administrations in updating existing regulations by applying research,
technology and analytical results; to provide reliable information to
transportation system decision makers; and to provide safety regulation
implementation and enforcement training.
QUANTIFIABLE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RULEMAKINGS
ON THE 2007-8 DOT REGULATORY PLAN
This chart does not account for non-quantifiable benefits, which are
often substantial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantifiable Quantifiable
Agency/RIN Number Costs Benefits
Title Stage Discounted 2006 Discounted 2006
$ (Millions) $ (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AC97Nondiscrimination on the Basis of FR 05/08 1,212 2,077
Disability in Air Travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for OST 1,212 2,077
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AI05 Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread FR 05/08 537 1,214
Fatigue Damage)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AI23 Transport Airplane Fuel Tank FR 11/07 1,145 1,132
Flammability Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AI92 Automatic Dependent Surveillance- NPRM 10/07 2,433 2,018
Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AJ01 Part 121 Pilot Age Limit NPRM 01/08 (no estimate (no estimate
yet) yet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for FAA 4,115 4,364
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AA10 Medical Certification Requirements as FR 04/08 61 83
Part of the CDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AA59 New Entrant Safety Assurance Process FR 03/08 490 3,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AA86 Requirements of Intermodal Equipment FR 04/08 147-241 82-258
Operators and Motor Carriers and
Drivers Operating Intermodal
Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AA89 Electronic On-Board Recorders FR 09/08 190-280 200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AA97 National Registry of Certified NPRM 12/07 860 1014
Medical Examiners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AB02 Commercial Driver's Licenses and NPRM 12/07 26 96
Learner's Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for FMCSA 1,774-1,957 5,195-5,371
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69894]]
2127-AG51 Roof Crush Resistance FR 07/08 96 72-138
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2127-AJ37 Reduced Stopping Distance FR 01/08 52 847-1,031
Requirements for Truck Tractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2127-AK08 Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel NPRM 11/07 (no estimate (no estimate
Economy Standards, Model Years 2012 Final Rule 11/08 yet) yet)
and Beyond
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for NHTSA 148 919-1,169
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2130-AB84 Regulatory Relief for Electronically FR 08/08 1,520 3,262
Controlled Pneumatic Brake System
Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for FRA 1,520 3,262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2132-AA81 New Small/Starts NPRM 10/07 (no estimate (no estimate
yet) yet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for FTA --- ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2137-AE02 Hazardous Materials: Enhancing Rail FR 12/07 17 (no estimate; 1
Transportation Safety and Security accident = 126)
for Hazardous Materials Shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2137-AE15 Pipeline Safety: Distribution NPRM 12/07 1,484 2.691
Integrity Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for PHMSA 1,501 2,691
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FOR DOT 10,270 - 10,453 18,508 - 18,934
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Estimated values are shown after rounding to the nearest $1 million and represent discounted present values
assuming a discount rate of 7 percent.
Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over varying periods. Although the forecast periods will be
the same for any given rulemaking, comparisons between proceedings should be made cautiously.
The Department of Transportation generally assumes that there are economic benefits to avoiding a fatality of
$3.0 million. That economic value is included as part of the benefits estimates shown in the chart. As noted
above, we have made no effort to include the non-quantifiable benefits.
The PHMSA and DOT total estimates include the costs for RIN 2137-AE02, but not the benefits, since the agency
has not calculated the estimated benefits at this time.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Office of the Secretary (OST)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
110. [rplus]NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR TRAVEL
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
14 USC 41702; 14 USC 41705; 14 USC 41712
CFR Citation:
14 CFR 382
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would add coverage under the Air Carrier Access Act to
foreign air carriers and comprehensively update and revise 14 CFR Part
382. It would also clarify or propose new provisions in such areas as
movable aisle armrests, preboarding announcements, and accessibility of
carrier web sites.
Statement of Need:
This rule is needed to ensure nondiscriminatory policies and acessible
services by air carriers, including foreign air carriers. It is also
needed to improve accomdations for passengers who use medical oxygen or
have impaired hearing.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Air Carrier Access Act.
Alternatives:
Concerning foreign carriers, the main alternative (inadequate) would
have been to rely on foreign policies and rules. With respect to
oxygen, the main alternative would be to simply require carriers to
allow passengers to bring on their own portable oxygen containers or to
also allow carriers to provide oxygen to passengers who need it. With
respect to accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing passengers, the
main alternative would be to not change the current rule, which has
fewer such accommodations.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Present value benefits in 2006 dollars, for the combined ACAA final
rule (foreign carriers, oxygen, and deaf and hard of hearing) are
estimated at $2077.0m. Present value costs are
[[Page 69895]]
estimated at $1212.4m, resulting in estimated net benefits of $864.6m.
Risks:
The risks of not taking regulatory action would be to allow barriers to
air travel by people with disabilities to remain in place.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 11/04/04 69 FR 64364
Comment Period Extended 01/28/05 70 FR 4058
NPRM Comment Period End 02/02/05
Comment Period End 03/04/05
Final Rule 01/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Robert C Ashby
Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4723
TDD Phone: 202 755-7687
Email: bob.ashby@ost.dot.gov
RIN: 2105-AC97
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
111. [rplus]AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE--BROADCAST (ADS-B)
EQUIPAGE MANDATE TO SUPPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
49 USC 1155; 49 USC 40103; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40120; 49 USC 44101; 49
USC 44111; 49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44709; 49 USC 44711; 49 USC 44712; 49
USC 44715; 49 USC 44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 46306; 49
USC 46315; 49 USC 46316; 49 USC 46504; 49 USC 46506-46507; 49 USC
47122; 49 USC 47508; 49 USC 47528-47531; 49 USC 106(g); Articles 12 and
29 of 61 Stat.1180
CFR Citation:
14 CFR 91
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would require Automatic Dependent Surveillance -
Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment on aircraft to operate in certain
classes of airspace within the United States National Airspace System.
The rulemaking is necessary to accommodate the expected increase in
demand for air transportation, as described in the Next Generation Air
Transportation System Integrated Plan. The intended effect of this rule
is to provide the Federal Aviation Administration with a comprehensive
surveillance system that accommodates the anticipated increase in
operations and would provide a platform for additional flight
applications and services.
Statement of Need:
Congress has tasked the FAA with creating the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) to accommodate the projected increase
in demand for air traffic services. The current FAA surveillance system
will not be able to maintain the same level of service as operations
continue to grow.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace, and Subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under
section 40103, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations on the
flight of aircraft, including regulations on safe altitudes,
navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft, and the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace. Under section 44701, the FAA
is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce
by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce.
Alternatives:
The FAA considered the following alternatives before proceeding with
this rulemaking:
1. Status quo. The FAA rejected the status quo alternative because the
ground based radars tracking congested flyways and passing information
among the control centers for the duration of the flights is becoming
operationally obsolete. The current system is not efficient enough to
accommodate the estimated increases in air traffic, which would result
in mounting delays or limitations in service for many areas.
2. Multilateration. Multilateration is a separate type of secondary
surveillance system that is not radar and has limited deployment in the
U.S. At a minimum, multilateration requires upwards of four ground
stations to deliver the same volume of coverage and integrity of
information as ADS-B, due to the need to ``triangulate'' the aircraft's
position. Multilateration meets the need for accurate surveillance but
the total life cycle system costs is very high.
3. Exemption to small air carriers. This alternative would mean that
small air carriers would rely on the status quo ground based radars
tracking their flights and passing information among the control
centers for the duration of the flights. This alternative would require
compliance costs to continue for the commissioning of radar sites. Air
traffic controller workload and training costs would increase having to
employ two systems in tracking aircraft. Small entities may request ATC
deviations prior to operating in the airspace affected by this
proposal. It would also be contrary to our policy for one level of
safety in part 121 operations to exclude certain operators simply
because they are small entities. Thus, this alternative is not
considered to be acceptable.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The estimated cost of this proposed rule ranges from a low of $1.31
billion to a high of $7.51 billion dollars. The estimated quantified
potential benefits of the proposed rule are $8.11 billion and primarily
result from fuel, operating cost and time savings from more efficient
flights. On a present value basis costs range from $1.0 billion to
$3.95 billion, with benefits estimated at $2.02 billion (using a 7%
discount rate).
[[Page 69896]]
Risks:
The demand for air travel is expected to double within the next 20
years. Current FAA projections are that by 2025, operations will grow
to more than half a million departures and arrivals per year at
approximately 16 additional airports. The present air traffic control
system will be unable to handle this level of growth. Not only will the
current method of handling traffic flow not be able to adapt to the
highest volume and density for future operations, but the nature of the
new growth may be problematic, as future aviation activity will be much
more diverse than it is today. A shift of 2 percent of today's
commercial passengers to very light jets that seat 4-6 passengers would
result in triple the number of flights necessary to carry the same
number of passengers. Furthermore, the challenges grow with the advent
of other non-conventional aircraft, such as the UAS.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 10/05/07 72 FR 56947
NPRM Comment Period End 01/03/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Project number ATO-06-552-R.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Vincent Capezzuto
Terminal Program Operations
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 385-8637
Email: vincent.capezzuto@faa.gov
RIN: 2120-AI92
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
112. [rplus]PILOT AGE LIMIT
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 44101; 49 USC 44701-
44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709-44711; 49 USC 44713; 49 USC 44716-
44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 44901; 49 USC 44903-44904; 49 USC 44912; 49
USC 46105
CFR Citation:
14 CFR 121
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would raise the upper age limit for pilots serving in
air carrier operations (14 CFR part 121) to age 65, as long as the
other pilot at the controls is under age 60. In addition, and to
conform to ICAO standards, the FAA would make a minor amendment to
airmen certification rules to require that air carrier pilots over age
60 hold an FAA first-class medical certificate.
Statement of Need:
In November 2006, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
adopted Amendment 167 to increase the ``upper age limit'' for pilots
operating in ``international commercial air transport operations'' to
age 65, provided the other pilot is under age 60. The rulemaking would
make the FAA's upper age limit for pilots consistent with ICAO's new
standard.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This rulemaking is proposed under the authority described in subtitle
VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General requirements.''
Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for other
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce and national security.
Alternatives:
The FAA is currently reviewing alternatives to the rulemaking.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The FAA is currently developing the costs and benefits of this
rulemaking.
Risks:
In accordance with our treaty obligations under Article 33 to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation, we have changed the
operations specifications for foreign air carriers (that do not fly N-
registered aircraft) in order to comply with the new International
Civil Aviation Organization standards. This does have the effect of
allowing some pilots older than age 60 who are employed by foreign air
carriers to operate within the United States. This creates an
inconsistency with U.S. certificated pilots. We expect that this
inconsistency will be resolved by the ongoing rulemaking.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Cost estimates are not yet available. They will be included when the
draft regulatory evaluation is completed. Docket number for project is
FAA-2006-26139.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Larry Youngblut
Flight Standards Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20951
Phone: 202 267-9360
Email: larry.youngblut@faa.gov
RIN: 2120-AJ01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
113. [rplus]AGING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM (WIDESPREAD FATIGUE DAMAGE)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 41706; 49 USC 44101;
49 USC 44701-44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709-44711; 49 USC 44713; 44
USC 44716-44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 46105; 49 USC 1372; Pub L 107-71
sec 104; . . .
[[Page 69897]]
CFR Citation:
14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 129
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would require design approval holders to establish
limits of validity (LOVs) of the engineering data that support the
maintenance programs for certain transport category airplanes, and it
would require them to determine if maintenance actions are needed to
prevent widespread fatigue damage before an airplane reaches its LOV.
This rulemaking would require operators of any affected airplane to
incorporate the LOV and any necessary service information into their
maintenance programs. This rulemaking would also prohibit operation of
an affected airplane beyond the operational limit, unless an operator
has incorporated an extended LOV and any necessary service information
into its maintenance program.
Statement of Need:
History has shown that widespread fatigue damage (WFD) is a significant
safety risk for transport category airplanes. The Aloha B-737 accident
in 1988 showed FAA and industry that WFD could be a problem that could
lead to catastrophic failure of airplane structure. Numerous widespread
fatigue damage incidents since then have confirmed that it is a threat
common to all aging airplanes. Because widespread fatigue damage
results from the interaction of many small cracks, existing inspection
methods are inadequate to reliably detect and prevent it.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 44701, Title 49 of the United States Code states that the
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of
safety.
Alternatives:
The FAA acknowledges the proposed rule may have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. We conclude the current
proposal is the preferred alternative because it provides for a common
WFD system for all operators who fly in the same airspace under the
same operating environment.
We considered the following alternatives:
1. Exclude small entities
2. Extend the compliance deadline for small entities
3. Establish lesser technical requirements for small entities
4. Expand the requirements to cover more airplanes
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The cost of this proposal is $358.1 million. The benefits of this
proposal consist of $654 million in accident prevention benefits and
$74 million in detection benefits, for total benefits of $728 million.
Risks:
Because widespread fatigue damage problems will occur as airplanes
operate beyond their initial operational limit, operators are likely to
detect such problems over the 20-year forecast period. The FAA has
assumed that there is a probability of widespread fatigue damage
problems occurring for each fuselage type of five percent in each year.
Under this assumption, there is a 35 percent chance that there will be
zero WFD problems detected for a particular fuselage type over a 20-
year period.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/18/06 71 FR 19927
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 07/17/06 71 FR 38540
NPRM Comment Period End 09/18/06
Final Rule 07/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Present value (7%) cost $537 million -- Present value (7%) benefits
$1,214 million
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Walter Sippel
ANM-115
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98039-4056
Phone: 425 227-2774
Fax: 425 227-1232
Email: walter.sippel@faa.gov
RIN: 2120-AI05
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
114. [rplus]TRANSPORT AIRPLANE FUEL TANK FLAMMABILITY REDUCTION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44701-44702; 49 USC 44704
CFR Citation:
14 CFR 25; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 129; 14 CFR 91
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking will require that flammability reduction means be
incorporated into existing airplanes, newly manufactured airplanes, and
new designs. It establishes new design standards for future and pending
applications for type certification as well as new operating rules for
retrofitting existing airplanes.
Statement of Need:
There have been four accidents caused by fuel tank explosions since
1989. Two occurred during flight and two others occurred on the ground.
Terrorists caused one of the four. In the other three cases, no
ignition source was identified as the cause of the explosion. In all
four cases, however, investigators concluded that the center wing fuel
tank in these airplanes contained flammable vapors when the fuel tanks
exploded and the accidents occurred.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 44701, title 49 of the United States Code states that the
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of
safety.
[[Page 69898]]
Alternatives:
1. Require flammability reduction means on new production and new
designs without requiring retrofit. The risk analysis for this option
predicted an unacceptable high number of future accidents due to the
high number of airplanes within the current fleet that would remain in
service for many years. 2. Require inerting of all fuel tanks on
existing airplanes in the fleet and new type designs. 3. Exclude all
cargo operators. 4. Address unsafe condition through airworthiness
directive. 5. Impose changes on operators as opposed to requiring OEMs
to develop design changes. Past experience on similar safety
initiatives shows the OEMs do not consistently support these effors and
places in undue burden on the operators.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The The FAA is conducting a regulatory evaluation using various
combinations of the value of a human life, the timing of the next
accidents, the passenger load on the next accident airplane, and the
effectiveness of SFAR 88. We anticipate costs and benefits will vary
based upon assumptions used in calculating these values. Using a value
of $3 million per life, average airplane size, average time for the
next accident, the costs could exceed $1 billion and quantitative
benefits will be less than $1 billion.
Risks:
The FAA believes at least one and as many as five accidents will happen
in the next 50 years.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 11/23/05 70 FR 70922
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 03/21/06 71 FR 14122
Comment Period End 05/08/06
Final Rule 02/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Present value (7%) cost $1,145 million -- Present value (7%) benefits
$1,132 million
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Mike Dostert
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-4056
Phone: 425 227-2132
Fax: 425 227-1320
Email: mike.dostert@faa.gov
RIN: 2120-AI23
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
115. [rplus]NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CERTIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINERS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
Sec. 4116 of PL 109-59 (2005)
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 390; 49 CFR 391
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would establish training, testing and certification
standards for medical examiners responsible for certifying that
interstate commercial motor vehicle drivers meet established physical
qualifications standards; provide a database (or National Registry) of
medical examiners that meet the prescribed standards for use by motor
carriers, drivers, and Federal and State enforcement personnel in
determining whether a medical examiner is qualified to conduct
examinations of interstate truck and bus drivers; and require medical
examiners to transmit electronically to FMCSA the name of the driver
and a numerical identifier for each driver that is examined. The
rulemaking would also establish the process by which medical examiners
that fail to meet or maintain the minimum standards would be removed
from the National Registry. This action is in response to section 4116
of SAFETEA-LU.
Statement of Need:
In enacting the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [PL 109-59, August 10,
2005], Congress recognized the need to improve the quality of the
medical certification of drivers. SAFETEA-LU addresses the requirement
for medical examiners to receive training in physical examination
standards and be listed on a national registry of certified medical
examiners as one step toward improving the quality of the commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) driver physical examination process and the medical
fitness of CMV drivers to operate CMVs. The safety impact will result
from removing drivers who are not medically qualified to drive from
interstate driving, and also from requiring drivers to seek medical
treatment for conditions (such as hypertension) that are likely to
impact safety and driver health. FMCSA has determined that focusing on
medical examiner performance is one strategy for improving safety and
reducing fatalities on our highways.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The fundamental legal basis for the NRCME program comes from 49 U.S.C.
31149(d), which authorizes FMCSA to establish and maintain a current
national registry of medical examiners. FMCSA is also directed to
determine which medical examiners are qualified to perform examinations
of CMV drivers and to issue medical certificates. FMCSA is authorized
to remove from the registry any medical examiner who fails to meet or
maintain qualifications established by FMCSA. In addition, in
developing its regulations, FMCSA must consider both the effect of
driver health on the safety of CMV operations and the effect of such
operations on driver health, 49 U.S.C. 3113(a).
Alternatives:
FMCSA is considering how best to address the concerns expressed by
Congress. In doing so, we are exploring several options. We will
discuss the various alternatives in a planned notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
We estimated 10 year costs (discounted at 7 percent) at $586,969,000,
total benefits at $662,130,000, and net benefits over 10 years at
$75,161,000.
[[Page 69899]]
Risks:
FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated
with this activity.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels
Chief, Physical Qualifications Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4001
Email: maggi.gunnels@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AA97
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA
116. [rplus]COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE TESTING AND COMMERCIAL
LEARNER'S PERMIT STANDARDS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
49 USC 31102 and 31136; PL 105-178, 112 Stat 414 (1998); PL 99-570,
title XII, 100 Stat 3207 (1086); Sec 4007(a)(1) of PL 102-240, 105 Stat
1914, 2151; Sec 4122 of PL 109-59 (2005); Sec 703 of PL 109-347
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384; 49 CFR 385
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, April 14, 2008.
The statutory deadline results from section 703 of the SAFE Port Act
(enacted October 13, 2006). The Act requires the Agency to implement
certain statutory provisions within 18 months of enactment.
Abstract:
This rulemaking would establish revisions to the commercial driver's
license knowledge and skills testing standards as required by section
4019 of TEA-21, implement fraud detection and prevention initiatives at
the State driver licensing agencies as required by the SAFE Port Act of
2006, and establish new minimum Federal standards for States to issue
commercial learner's permits (CLPs), based in part on the requirements
of section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU. In addition, to ensuring the applicant
has the appropriate knowledge and skills to operate a commercial motor
vehicle, this rule would establish the minimum information that must be
on the CLP document and the electronic driver's record. The rule would
also establish maximum issuance and renewal periods, establish a
minimum age limit, address issues related to a driver's State of
Domicile, and incorporate previous regulatory guidance into the Federal
regulations. This rule would also address issues raised in the SAFE
Port Act.
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule would create a Federal requirement for a commercial
learner's permit (CLP) as a pre-condition for a commercial driver's
license (CDL) and make a variety of other changes to enhance the CDL
program. This would help to ensure that drivers who operate CMVs are
legally licensed to do so and that they do not operate CMVs without
having passed the requisite tests.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Public Law 99-
570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170; 49 U.S.C. chapter 313); section
4122 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public Law 109-59, 119
Stat. 1144, at 1734; 49 U.S.C. 31302, 31308, and 31309); and section
703 of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE
Port Act) (Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, at 1944). It is also
based in part on the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA) (Public
Law 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832; 49 U.S.C. 31136, and the safety
provisions of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) (Chapter 498, 49
Stat. 543, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502).
Alternatives:
There are 17 issues described in this rulemaking document and several
alternatives were considered for each.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
We estimate 10 year costs (discounted at 7 percent) at $25,836,000,
total benefits at $95,913,000, and net benefits over 10 years at
$70,076,000.
Risks:
FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated
with this activity.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Additional Information:
Docket ID: FMCSA-2007-27659
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
James Davis
Commercial Driver's License Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-6406
Email: james.davis@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AB02
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
117. [rplus]MEDICAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE
Priority:
Other Significant
[[Page 69900]]
Legal Authority:
sec 215, PL 106-159; 113 Stat. 1748, 1767 (1999); 49 USC 31305 note and
31502
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 383, 384, and 391; 49 CFR 390
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would require those commercial driver's license (CDL)
drivers who are required to obtain a Federal medical certification for
the current status of that certification be made part of the commercial
driver's licensing and renewal process, as required by Section 215 of
the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act. Incorporating the current
medical certification status information into the State-administered
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) driver record
would improve highway safety by requiring those drivers who are
required by Federal regulations to obtain a medical certificate to
provide ``proof'' of that medical certification in order to obtain or
retain a CDL. It would enable electronic verification of the current
medical certification status as part of existing employer and
enforcement programs. It would eliminate the requirement for those CDL
operators who are required by Federal regulations to obtain a medical
certificate to carry their medical examiner's certificate in addition
to their CDL since an electronic record would verify that there is a
valid medical certificate. FMCSA is currently reviewing comments to the
docket.
Statement of Need:
This rule is required by Public Law 106-159. Section 215 of the Act
requires that medical certification information be made part of the
CDL. When applying for (or renewing) a CDL, 49 CFR Part 383 requires
drivers to self-certify whether they are subject to part 391
(Qualifications of Drivers). If they operate in interstate commerce and
are not excepted, then part 383 requires these drivers to self-certify
whether they meet the physical qualification requirements of Part 391.
Part 383 does not currently require drivers to provide any ``proof''
regarding their physical qualification to operate a CMV in order to
obtain or retain a CDL. This rulemaking would require interstate CDL
drivers who are not excepted to begin providing to their State driver-
licensing agency (SDLA) an original or copy (at the State's discretion)
of each medical examiner's certificate they obtain. The SDLA would
modify their implementation of CDLIS and record information on that
driver's Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS)
individual driver record maintained by the State. The new required
information would include both the self-certification regarding
applicability of part 391, and for interstate drivers who are not
excepted, the current medical certification status information. This
combination of information about the applicability of part 391 and
medical certification status would determine whether a CDL could be
issued, transferred, upgraded, renewed, or retained.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 215 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA)
directed the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to ``initiate a
rulemaking to provide for a Federal medical qualification certificate
to be made a part of commercial driver's licenses.'' The physical
qualifications requirements in 49 CFR part 391 are based on 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31502. The physical qualifications standards are at 49 CFR
Sec. 391.11. Part 391 regulations are applicable only to drivers who
operate CMVs, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132. Thus, FMCSA interprets
section 215 of MCSIA applicable only to interstate CDL holders.
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 directed the Secretary
to establish licensing standards for drivers that operate CMVs, as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 31301. Those operators of CMVs as defined in 49
U.S.C. 31301, who are engaged solely in intrastate commerce, must
obtain a CDL but are not required by current Federal regulations to
obtain a medical certificate as proof of their physical qualifications
to operate commercial vehicles. [49 CFR Sec. 383.71(a)(1)]. The
Secretary delegated these authorities to FMCSA. [49 CFR Sec. 1.73].
Alternatives:
All alternatives require SDLAs to modify CDLIS. Under alternatives 1
and 2, SDLAs receive paper documents (original or copy) and perform
data input. Under alternative 3, SDLAs receive an electronic CDLIS
transaction.
Employing motor carriers would be able to obtain medical certification
status on CDLIS motor vehicle record (MVR) obtained from SDLA. For
drivers subject to part 391 and not excepted, MVR would contain medical
certification status, as well as license status. Enforcement personnel
obtain current license status, whether driver operates in interstate
commerce, and medical certification status via electronic checks.
Under all three alternatives, the CDLIS driver record serves as the
official record to indicate whether a driver operating in interstate
commerce is required to be medically certified, and, if so, whether the
driver is currently medically certified.
1. CDL Renewal Cycle Same as Medical Certificate.
Driver provides a current medical examiner's certificate to SDLA, which
issues a new CDL expiring same day as certificate. Medical certificates
expire in two years, so CDLs would be issued more often, and drivers
would pay more fees that States assess.
2. No Change in CDL Renewal Cycle-Distributed.
As in alternative 1, CDL drivers provide medical a current examiner's
certificate to SDLA. There would be no additional issuance of a new
CDL. SDLAs develop capability to downgrade CDL if new certification not
received by expiration. Employers and enforcement personal obtain
needed verifications from CDLIS driver record.
3. No Change in CDL Renewal Cycle-Centralized.
Certificates go to central location. Status information electronically
transmitted to SDLA, which develop capability to electronically receive
and record on CDLIS driver record. As in alternative 2, SDLA downgrades
CDL if new certification is not received by time it expires. Employer
and enforcement access like alternatives 1 and 2 above.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
A preliminary regulatory evaluation for this rule was prepared and was
placed in the docket when the NPRM was published. Costs being reviewed
based on comments to the NPRM. Currently, we estimate 10 year costs
(discounted at 7 percent) at $61,134,000, total benefit at $82,585,000,
and net benefit over 10 years at $21,450,000.
Risks:
In addition to assessing costs, the agency is assessing the safety
benefits.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 07/15/94 59 FR 36338
[[Page 69901]]
ANPRM Comment Period End 11/14/94
NPRM 11/16/06 71 FR 66273
NPRM Comment Period End 02/14/07
Final Rule 04/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
State
Additional Information:
Docket ID: FMCSA-97-2210.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels
Chief, Physical Qualifications Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4001
Email: maggi.gunnels@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AA10
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA
118. [rplus]NEW ENTRANT SAFETY ASSURANCE PROCESS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 106-159, sec 210; 113 Stat 1748 (1999); PL 107-87, sec 350; 49 USC
31144
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 385
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would change the New Entrant Safety Assurance Process
by raising the standard of compliance for passing the new entrant
safety audit. It also would make clarifying changes to some of the
existing new entrant regulations. The rule also proposes a separate
application procedure and safety oversight system for non-North
America-domiciled motor carriers. The proposed rule would improve the
Agency's ability to identify at-risk new entrant carriers and would
ensure deficiencies in basic safety management controls are corrected
before the new entrant is granted permanent registration. These changes
would not impose additional operational requirements on any new entrant
carrier. All new entrants would continue to receive educational
information on how to comply with the safety regulations and be given
an opportunity to correct any deficiencies found. FMCSA recognizes many
new entrants are small businesses that are unaware of these
requirements and continue to need our assistance.
Statement of Need:
Sec. 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA)
[Public Law 106-159, December 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1764] directed the
agency to establish a safety monitoring system and application process
for owners and operators requesting authority to operate in interstate
commerce. The objective is to ensure new owners and new operators are
knowledgeable about applicable Federal motor carrier safety standards.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under sec. 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
(MCSIA) [Public Law 106-159, December 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1764],
Congress directed the agency to require new owners and new operators
granted operating authority to pass a safety review within 18 months of
beginning operations. Additionally, the agency must establish minimum
requirements for applicants for new authority to operate in Interstate
commerce to ensure applicants are knowledgeable about applicable
Federal motor carrier safety standards.
Alternatives:
The agency considered requiring a proficiency examination to evaluate a
new applicant's knowledge about applicable Federal motor carrier safety
standards. Instead, FMCSA required applicants for new entrant authority
to self-certify that they are knowledgeable of applicable Federal
requirements and provided educational and technical assistance
materials to familiarize them with applicable standards.
The agency provided two alternatives for increasing the number of new
entrant motor carriers audited annually. First, the agency provides an
alternative to how a safety auditor may conduct safety audits. The
safety auditor may audit a single new entrant motor carrier at its
place of business or conduct group audits of multiple new entrant motor
carriers at one time at a location other than a motor carrier's place
of business. The agency also solicited comment on whether to use
private contractors to conduct the safety audits and is exploring the
option in forthcoming rulemakings.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
We estimate the costs to be $490 million (net present value discounted
at 7% over 10 years) and the benefits to be $3,900 million (net present
value discounted at 7% over 10 years). The full regulatory evaluation
for the NPRM is in the docket.
Risks:
FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated
with this activity.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule (IFR) 05/13/02 67 FR 31978
IFR Comment Period End 07/12/02
IFR Effective 01/01/03
NPRM 12/21/06 71 FR 76730
NPRM Comment Period End 02/20/07
Final Rule 03/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Docket ID: FMCSA-2001-11061
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Stephanie Haller
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-0178
Email: stephanie.haller@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AA59
[[Page 69902]]
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA
119. [rplus]REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDERS AND MOTOR
CARRIERS AND DRIVERS OPERATING INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
49 USC 31136 and 31502; 49 USC 31151; sec 4118, PL 109-59 (2005)
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 386, 392; 49 CFR 385, 390, 393, and 396
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, August 11, 2006.
Abstract:
This rulemaking would require entities that offer intermodal container
chassis for transportation in interstate commerce to: File a Motor
Carrier Identification Report (Form MCS-150); display a USDOT
identification number on each chassis offered for such transportation;
establish a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program to
ensure the safe operating condition of each chassis offered for
transportation and maintain documentation of the program; and provide a
means for effectively responding to driver and motor carrier complaints
about the condition of intermodal container chassis. The rulemaking is
considered significant because of substantial industry and
congressional interest and because it involves other departmental
modes.
Statement of Need:
Section 4118 of SAFETEA--LU amended 49 U.S.C., chapter 311, by adding
new section 31151 (49 U.S.C. 31151) titled ``Roadability.'' Section
31151 states: ``The Secretary of Transportation, after providing notice
and opportunity for comment, shall issue regulations establishing a
program to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport
intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained.''
Summary of Legal Basis:
This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Safety
Act of 1984 (1984 Act) and section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU, codified at 49
U.S.C. 31151). The 1984 Act provides authority to regulate drivers,
motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU
requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations ``to
ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal
containers is safe and systematically maintained.'' It specifies, in
considerable detail, a minimum of 14 items that must be included in the
regulations. It also provides the authority for Departmental employees
designated by the Secretary to inspect intermodal equipment and related
maintenance and repair records, and to place out-of-service equipment
that fails to comply with applicable Federal safety regulations until
the necessary repairs have been made. The legislation also requires the
Secretary to preempt State requirements for the periodic inspection of
intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers that was in effect
on January 1, 2005 on the effective date of the final rule. However, it
allows the Secretary to waive preemption if a State makes application,
provided the Secretary finds that the State requirement is as effective
as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden interstate
commerce.
Alternatives:
The legislative mandate precluded broad regulatory alternatives.
However, the NPRM requested comments concerning the marking of
intermodal equipment, and in particular, whether other unique
identification numbers could serve the same purpose as the USDOT
number.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
We estimate the costs to be between $146.7 and $241.7 million (net
present value discounted at 7% over 10 years), and the benefits to be
between $82.3 to 257.6 million (net present value discounted at 7% over
10 years). The full regulatory evaluation for the NPRM is in the
docket.
Risks:
FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated
with this activity.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/21/06 71 FR 76796
NPRM Comment Period End 03/21/07
Comment Period Extended 04/13/07 72 FR 18615
End Extended Comment
Period 05/21/07
Final Rule 04/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Deborah M Freund
Senior Transportation Specialist
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5370
Email: deborah.freund@dot.gov
Related RIN: Related to 2126-AA38
RIN: 2126-AA86
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FMCSA
120. [rplus]ELECTRONIC ON-BOARD RECORDERS FOR HOURS-OF-SERVICE
COMPLIANCE
Priority:
Other Significant
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
49 U.S.C. 31502; 49 U.S.C. 31136(a); Pub. L 104-88; Pub. L 103.311; 49
USC 31137(a)
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 350; 49 CFR 385; 49 CFR 395; 49 CFR 396
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations to incorporate new performance standards for electronic on-
board recorders (EOBRs) to document compliance with the Federal hours-
of-service rules. This would help ensure that performance standards for
EOBRs are appropriate and reflect state-of-the-art communication and
information management technologies. The rulemaking would consider the
potential benefits and costs of requiring motor carriers to install and
use EOBRs and evaluate alternative approaches including: 1) Mandating
such practice industry-wide, 2) limiting the
[[Page 69903]]
requirement to motor carriers with certain characteristics, and 3)
allowing EOBR use to remain voluntary.
Statement of Need:
On July 16, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit vacated FMCSA's 2003 final rule concerning hours-
of-service of commercial motor vehicle drivers, for reasons unrelated
to EOBRs. In dicta, however, the court stated that section 408 of the
ICCTA ``required the Agency, at a minimum, to collect and analyze data
on the costs and benefits of requiring EOBRs.''
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 31502 of title 49 of the United States Code provides that
``[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for: (1)
qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety
of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications
and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of
equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of
operation.'' This rulemaking addresses ``safety of operation and
equipment'' of motor carriers and ``standards of equipment'' of motor
private carriers and, as such, is well within the authority of 49
U.S.C. 31502. The rulemaking would allow motor carriers to use EOBRs to
document drivers' compliance with the HOS requirements; require some
noncompliant carriers to install, use, and maintain EOBRs for this
purpose; and update existing performance standards for on-board
recording devices.
Section 31136 of title 49 of the United States Code provides concurrent
authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment.
It requires the Secretary to ``prescribe regulations on commercial
motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety
standards for commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations
shall ensure that: (1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained,
equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed
on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability
to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators
of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the
vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles
does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the
operators.''
Alternatives:
FMCSA considered several alternatives to the proposal discussed here.
These addressed the applicability of the proposal to all or subsets of
the population of regulated motor carriers, the threshold for the
application of the remedial directive, and the technical requirements
for the EOBR itself.
Concerning a requirement for using EOBRs, the agency considered
applying the proposed requirement to all motor carriers, to long-haul
motor carriers only, and to long-haul carriers with recurring hours-of-
service noncompliance. Concerning a requirement for the technical
requirements for an EOBR, the agency considered three levels of
complexity and sophistication. Taken in combination, only the lowest-
cost device applied to only the non-compliant long-haul motor carriers
generated a positive annualized net benefit of safety over costs.
Concerning the application of the remedial directive, the agency
considered different noncompliance thresholds and different numbers of
compliance reviews. The particular combination proposed provided a
window wide enough for FMCSA or State enforcement officials to perform
at least two compliance reviews, at current rates, on over 90 percent
of carriers with indicia of poor driver safety. The time frame between
the Agency's initial findings and its issuance of remedial directives
would be short enough to preserve the directives' efficacy in remedying
repeated noncompliance.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
For our most likely option at present, we estimate the costs to be
between $19 and $28 million per year (discounted at 7%) and the
benefits to be about $20 million per year (discounted at 7%). The
regulatory full evaluation for the NPRM is in the docket.
Risks:
FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be associated
with this activity.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 09/01/04 69 FR 53386
ANPRM Comment Period End 11/30/04
NPRM 01/18/07 72 FR 2340
NPRM Comment Period End 04/18/07
Final Rule 09/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
None
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
Docket ID: FMCSA-2004-18940.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Deborah M Freund
Senior Transportation Specialist
Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5370
Email: deborah.freund@dot.gov
RIN: 2126-AA89
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
121. [rplus]ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
49 USC 322; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 571.216
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, July 1, 2008.
Abstract:
This rulemaking would upgrade vehicle roof crush requirements. It is
part of the agency's comprehensive response to mitigate the number of
fatalities and injuries resulting from vehicle rollovers. Rollover
crashes constitute about 3 percent of passenger vehicle crashes, but
about one third of the fatalities. Light trucks are more prone
[[Page 69904]]
to rollover, and their percentage of the U.S. fleet continues to
increase. This crash mode constitutes a disproportionate segment of the
Nation's highway safety problem. This rulemaking is significant because
of public interest in vehicle safety.
Statement of Need:
Rollovers are especially lethal crashes. While rollovers comprise just
3% of all light passenger vehicle crashes, they account for almost one-
third of all occupant fatalities in light vehicles, and more than 60
percent of occupant deaths in the SUV segment of the light vehicle
population.
Agency data show that nearly 24,000 occupants are seriously injured and
10,000 occupants are fatally injured in approximately 273,000 non-
convertible light vehicle rollover crashes that occur each year. In
order to identify how many of these occupants might benefit from the
proposed upgrade, the agency analyzed real-world injury data in order
to determine the number of occupant injuries that could be attributed
to roof intrusion. The agency examined front outboard occupants who
were belted, not fully ejected from their vehicles, whose most severe
injury was associated with roof contact, and whose seating position was
located below a roof component that experienced vertical intrusion as a
result of a rollover crash. NHTSA estimates that there are about 807
seriously and approximately 596 fatally injured occupants per year that
fit these criteria. The agency believes that some of these occupants
would benefit from this upgrade.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 30111, title 49 of the USC, states that Secretary shall
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.
Alternatives:
The agency will consider alternatives related to performance criteria
and test procedures.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
In the NPRM, the agency estimated benefits of this proposal to range
from 498 to 793 non-fatal injuries and 13 to 44 fatalities. The annual
equivalent lives saved were estimated at 39 to 55. The estimated
average cost in 2003 dollars, per vehicle, of meeting the proposed
requirements would be $10.67 per affected vehicle. Added weight from
design changes is estimated to increase lifetime fuel costs by $5.33 to
$6.69 per vehicle. The cost per year for the vehicle fleet is estimated
to be $88-$95 million. The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated
to range from $2.1 to $3.4 million.
Risks:
Current motor vehicles provide numerous occupant protection systems,
such as side curtain air bags, upper interior padding, and advanced
safety belt systems, that mitigate occupant head-to-roof contact
injuries. Nevertheless, an estimated 498-793 non-fatal injuries and 13-
44 fatalities will continue to occur annually, absent the proposed
change in regulation. Potential adverse risks the agency is also
evaluating include a causal increase in rollover propensity that could
overwhelm the anticipated benefits from this upgrade.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comments 10/22/01 66 FR 53376
RFC Comment Period End 12/06/01
NPRM 08/23/05 70 FR 49223
NPRM Comment Period End 11/21/05
Supplemental NPRM 01/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
OMB cleared subject to NHTSA making changes to the reg eval
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Lori Summers
Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-1740
Email: lori.summers@dot.gov
Related RIN: Related to 2127-AH74
RIN: 2127-AG51
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA
122. [rplus]LIGHT TRUCK CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY
STANDARDS, MODEL YEARS 2012 AND BEYOND
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
49 USC 32902; Delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 533
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, November 1, 2008.
CAFE standards must be set at least 18 months prior to the start of a
model year. However, this action is also subject to a direction by the
President of the United States to complete rulemaking in 2008.
Abstract:
This rulemaking would address Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards pursuant to the President's Executive Order No.
13432.
Statement of Need:
Issuance of CAFE standards for light trucks is necessary to improve
energy security, strengthen national security, and protect the
environment.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 32902(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code requires the
issuance of maximum feasible CAFE standards for light trucks for each
model year.
Alternatives:
Joint rulemaking with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The costs and benefits of the new standards addressed in this action
have not yet been assessed.
Risks:
Depending on how manufacturers address Federal fuel economy
requirements, there is some potential effect on safety. The agency has
minimized this risk by switching to attribute-based standards in the
last light truck CAFE rulemaking. This switch discourages the
downsizing of vehicles since as vehicles become
[[Page 69905]]
smaller, the applicable fuel economy target becomes more stringent.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
Energy Effects:
Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by Executive Order
13211.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Kenneth R Katz
Lead Engineer, Consumer Program Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4936
Fax: 202 366-4329
Email: kkatz@nhtsa.dot.gov
RIN: 2127-AK08
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
123. [rplus]REDUCED STOPPING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRUCK TRACTORS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
49 CFR 1.50; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49
USC 322
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 571.121
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would reduce stopping distance requirements for truck
tractors equipped with air brake systems. Advances in heavy vehicle
braking systems show that improved stopping performance is attainable
for these vehicles. Such improvements would reduce the stopping
distance disparity with light vehicles, and would result in fewer
deaths and injuries and reduce property damage due to fewer crashes
between truck tractors and light vehicles.
Statement of Need:
Large trucks have longer stopping distances than light vehicles,
increasing the chance of crashes in panic stopping situations. Crash
data show that combination unit trucks (e.g., tractor-trailers) are
highly involved in large truck fatal crashes with light vehicles.
Agency test results indicate that significantly reduced tractor
stopping distances may be achieved by using current-technology brake
systems. The agency believes that sufficient test data exists to move
forward with a proposal.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 30111, Title 49 of the USC, states that the Secretary shall
prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.
Alternatives:
The agency is not pursuing any alternatives to reduce stopping
distances for this type of vehicle other than changes in the
requirements in FMVSS No. 121.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Reducing the stopping distance requirements (service brakes and/or
emergency brakes) for tractors in FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, by
20 to 30 percent is expected to reduce unable-to-stop-in-time
collisions between combination-unit trucks and light vehicles. Test
data has indicated that stopping distance reductions of up to 30
percent may be achievable for all tractors in FMVSS No. 121. Evaluation
is underway to determine the reductions in deaths, injuries, and
property damage that could result from reductions in tractor stopping
distances.
Risks:
The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this rulemaking,
and that only beneficial outcomes will occur as the industry moves to
improved tractor braking systems.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/15/05 70 FR 74270
NPRM Comment Period End 04/14/06
Final Rule 03/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Jeffrey Woods
Safety Standards Engineer Office of Crash Avoidance Standards
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-2720
Fax: 202 366-4329
Email: jeff.woods@dot.gov
RIN: 2127-AJ37
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
124. [rplus]REGULATORY RELIEF FOR ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC
BRAKE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
49 USC 20103; 49 USC 20107; 49 USC 20302; 49 USC 20306; 49 USC 20701-
20702; 49 USC 21301-21302
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 229; 49 CFR 232; 49 CFR 238
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would establish criteria for operating trains equipped
with Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake System technology. This
rulemaking would also provide regulatory relief, when necessary, to
promote the transition to Electronically Controlled Brake System
technology within the rail industry. This
[[Page 69906]]
rulemaking relates to, but is separate from the waiver proceeding under
Docket No. FRA-2006-26435.
Statement of Need:
The proposed regulations are designed to provide for and encourage the
safe implementation and use of ECP brake system technologies. FRA has
determined that permitting the railroad industry flexibility in the
manufacture and operation of ECP brake systems is the most efficient
and cost-effective method of ensuring the safe operation of ECP brake
equipped freight trains and freight cars. The proposed sections
requiring the amendment of the railroads' current operating and
training rules and the relaxation of inspection requirements and
frequencies provides the industry with the flexibility needed to take
advantage of ECP brake system implementation. Moreover, the current FRA
regulations do not adequately address the use of ECP brake system
technology. In fact, application of current regulations to freight
trains and freight cars equipped with ECP brake systems will create
inadequate and unnecessarily burdensome requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis:
FRA is issuing this rule pursuant to its rulemaking authority (49
U.S.C. 20103(a)) as delegated to the FRA Administrator (49 CFR 1.49).
Alternatives:
Currently, FRA accepts waiver applications from railroads that seek
relief from FRA safety regulations in order to test new ECP brake
system technologies. Since FRA must consider the safety ramifications
of each application on a case-by-case basis, this procedure leaves
considerable uncertainty regarding what type of safety case must be
demonstrated to obtain approval. Prior to this action, FRA also
considered: (1) leaving the existing regulatory requirement as is and
(2) mandating the implementation and use of ECP brake systems. However,
agency inaction would hinder introduction of new, safer railroad brake
technology and mandating the implementation and use of ECP brake
technology would be logistically and economically unfeasible and
burdensome. Accordingly, the proposed regulations are designed to
provide for and encourage the optional and safe implementation and use
of ECP brake system technologies.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
If the industry was to take advantage of the proposed relief to the
extent estimated by FRA for solely unit and unit-like trains, it would
cost it approximately $1.5 billion (discounted at 7%). The total
benefits of the proposed rule are approximately $3.2 billion
(discounted at 7%). In addition, FRA anticipates substantial benefits
that cannot be accurately quantified or forecasted at this time,
including a potential $2.5 billion in savings from a 1 mph increase in
network velocity. Overall, it appears that the benefits of the rule
would significantly outweigh the costs.
Risks:
The advantages of ECP brake technology will significantly improve the
safety and the performance of train operations, significantly reducing
the risk of train accidents. Examples of such benefits include: better
train handling through simultaneous brake applications; continuous
brake pipe charging; graduated release brake operation; shorter train
stopping distances; self-monitoring capabilities; electronic train
management; and improved performance.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/04/07 72 FR 50820
NPRM Comment Period End 11/05/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Jason Schlosberg
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
1120 Vermont Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 493-6032
Email: jason.schlosberg@dot.gov
RIN: 2130-AB84
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
125. [rplus]MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS--NEW/SMALL STARTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
P.L. 109-59, sec.3011; PL 109-59, sec 3011
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 611
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, April 7, 2006
Abstract:
This rulemaking would establish a simplified evaulation process for
projects seeking less than $75 million in New Starts funds. The rule
will set out FTA's evaluation and rating process for proposed projects
based on the results of project justification and local financial
commitment. This action is mandated by SAFETEA-LU.
Statement of Need:
Section 3011 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) made a
number of changes to 49 U.S.C. 5309, which authorizes the Federal
Transit Administration's (FTA's) fixed guideway capital investment
grant program known as ``New Starts.'' SAFETEA-LU also added created a
new category of major capital investments that have a total project
cost of less than $250 million, and that are seeking less than $75
million in section 5309 major capital investment funds. This rulemaking
proposes to implement those changes and a number of other changes that
FTA believes will improve the New Starts program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 5309, Title 49 of the United States Code requires the Secretary
to promulgate regulations for evaluation and selection of major capital
investment projects that have a total project cost of less than $250
million, and that are seeking less than $75 million in Section 5309
major capital investment funds.
[[Page 69907]]
Alternatives:
FTA sought public input through an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and several outreach sessions on the various options it
might pursue as part of this rulemaking. The Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking contains a discussion of the various alternatives it
considered in proposing a regulatory framework for implementing 49
U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e).
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The single largest change in the New Starts program is the creation in
SAFETEA-LU of the ``Small Starts'' program, to which FTA has added
``Very Small Starts.'' Over the first ten years of the Small Starts
program, the cumulative impact of transfer from New Starts to Small
Starts will likely be $1.9 Billion, with a Net Present Value of $1.311
Billion using a discount rate of 7 percent. This effect is difficult to
characterize in terms of cost or benefit, as it simply represents a
``transfer of a transfer`` from one governmental entity to another.
Risks:
The proposed rulemaking provides a framework for a discretionary grant
program; it does not propose to regulate other than for applicants for
Federal funds. As such, the rulemaking poses no risks for the regulated
community, other than for the risks inherent in pursuing Federal funds
that might not be awarded if a project fails to satisfy the eligibility
and evaluation criteria in the proposed regulatory structure.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 01/30/06 71 FR 4864
ANPRM Comment Period End 03/10/06
NPRM 08/03/07 72 FR 43328
NPRM Comment Period End 11/01/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Christopher VanWyk
Attorney Advisor
Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-1733
Email: christopher.vanwyk@fta.dot.gov
RIN: 2132-AA81
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
126. [rplus]PIPELINE SAFETY: DISTRIBUTION INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
49 USC 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108-10, 60113, 60118, and 49 CFR 1.53.
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 192
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would establish integrity management program
requirements appropriate for gas distribution pipeline operators. This
rulemaking would require gas distribution pipeline operators to develop
and implement programs to better assure the integrity of their pipeline
systems.
Statement of Need:
This rule is necessary to comply with a Congressional manade and to
enhance safety by managing and reducing risks associated with gas
distribution pipeline systems.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006
(Public Law No. 109-468), requires PHMSA to prescribe minimum standards
for integrity management programs for gas distribution pipelines.
Alternatives:
PHMSA considered the following alternatives:
--No Action: No new requirements would be levied.
--Apply existing gas transmission pipeline IMP regulations to gas
distribution pipelines.
--Model State legislation by imposing requirements on excavators and
others outside the regulatory jurisdiction of pipeline safety
authorities.
--Develop guidance documents for adoption by states with the intent of
states mandating use of the guidance.
--Implement prescriptive Federal regulations, specifying in detail,
actions that must be taken to assure distribution pipeline integrity.
--Implement risk-based, flexible, performance-oriented federal
regulations, establishing high-level elements that must be included in
integrity management programs--the alternative selected.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The monetized benefits resulting from the proposed rule are estimated
to be $195 million per year. The costs of the proposed rule are
estimated to be $155.1 million in the first year and $104.1 million in
each subsequent year.
Risks:
These regulations will require operators to analyze their pipelines,
including unique situations, identify the factors that affect risk--
both risk to the pipeline and the risks posed by the pipeline--and
manage those factors.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Docket Nos. PHMSA-04-18938 and PHMSA-04-19854.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
[[Page 69908]]
Agency Contact:
Mike Israni
General Engineer
Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4571
Email: mike.israni@phmsa.dot.gov
RIN: 2137-AE15
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--PHMSA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
127. [rplus]HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: ENHANCING RAIL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
AND SECURITY FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHIPMENTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
49 USC 5101 - 5127
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 172-174; 49 CFR 179
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), PHMSA
would revise the current requirements on the safe and secure
transportation of hazardous materials transported in commerce by rail.
It may require rail carriers to (1) compile annual data on certain
shipments of hazardous materials and use the data to analyze safety and
security risks along rail transportation routes where those materials
are transported; (2) assess alternative routing options and make
routing decisions based on those assessments; and (3) clarify the
current security plan requirements to address en route storage and
delays in transit.
Statement of Need:
PHMSA is responsible for the safe and secure movement of hazardous
materials by all transportation modes, including the nation's
railroads. The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-
180) are designed to achieve three goals: (1) to ensure that hazardous
materials are packaged and handled safely during transportation, thus
minimizing the possibility of their release should an incident occur,
(2) to ensure that the security risks associated with the
transportation of hazardous materials in commerce are addressed, and
(3) to effectively communicate to carriers, transportation workers, and
emergency responders the hazards of the material being transported. The
HMR also include operational requirements applicable to each mode of
transportation.
PHMSA's hazardous materials transportation regulatory program is
designed to balance safety and security concerns with economic and
societal goals. Rail shipments of hazardous materials are often
transported in substantial quantities and are potentially vulnerable to
sabotage or misuse. Such materials are already mobile and are routinely
transported in proximity to large population centers. A primary safety
and security concern involving the rail transportation of hazardous
materials is the prevention of a catastrophic release in proximity to
densely populated urban areas, events or venues with large numbers of
people in attendance, iconic buildings, landmarks, or environmentally
significant areas.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This final rule is published under authority of Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et
seq.) Section 5103(b) of Federal hazmat law authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation,
including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate,
and foreign commerce. In addition, the Homeland Security Council has
tasked DOT and DHS to improve security of rail shipments of toxic
inhalation hazard (TIH) materials.
Alternatives:
Alternative 1: Do nothing
This alternative continues the status quo. We would not issue a final
rule to require carriers to make route selections for certain highly
hazardous materials based on a comprehensive assessment of the safety
and security vulnerabilities along available routes nor would we
require rail carriers to inspect rail cars for IEDs or implement
measures to minimize time in transit for highly hazardous materials.
The current security plan requirements would continue in place.
Alternative 2: Impose enhanced safety and security requirements for a
broad list of hazardous materials transported by rail
Under this alternative, we would impose enhanced safety and security
requirements for rail shipments of a broad list of hazardous materials,
including explosives; flammable solids, liquids, and gases; poison and
poison inhalation hazard materials; oxidizers and organic peroxides;
and corrosive materials.
Alternative 3: Impose enhanced safety and security requirements for
specified rail shipments of highly hazardous materials
Under this alternative, we would impose enhanced safety and security
requirements only for those classes and quantities of hazardous
materials that pose unique and substantial safety and security risks.
Covered materials would include: (1) more than 2,268 kg (5,000 lbs) in
a single carload of Division 1.1., 1.2, and 1.3 explosives; (2) bulk
quantities (119 gallons or more) of PIH materials; and (3) highway
route-controlled quantities of radioactive materials. For these
reasons, we have selected this alternative.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Costs
Rail carriers and shippers may incur costs associated with rerouting
shipments or mitigating safety and security vulnerabilities identified
as a result of their route analyses. Because the final rule builds on
the current route evaluation and routing practices already in place for
most, if not all, railroads that haul the types of hazardous materials
covered, we do not expect rail carriers to incur significant costs
associated with rerouting. Generally, costs associated with the
provisions of this final rule include costs for collecting and
retaining data and performing the mandated route safety and security
analysis. We estimate total 20-year costs to gather the data and
conduct the analyses proposed in this final rule to be about $17.4
million (discounted at 7%).
Benefits
The major benefits expected to result from this final rule relate to
enhanced safety and security of rail shipments of hazardous materials.
The requirements of the final rule are intended to reduce the safety
and security risks associated with the transportation of the specified
hazardous materials. We estimated the costs of a major accident or
terrorist incident by calculating the costs of the January 2005
Graniteville, South Carolina, accident. This accident killed nine
people and injured 554 more. In addition, the accident necessitated the
[[Page 69909]]
evacuation of more than 5,400 people. Total costs associated with the
Graniteville accident are almost $126 million. If the measures proposed
in this final rule prevent just one major accident or intentional
release over a twenty-year period, the resulting benefits would more
than justify the potential compliance costs. We believe that they
could.
Risks:
It is possible to envision scenarios where hazardous materials in
transportation could be used to inflict hundreds or even thousands of
fatalities. Direct costs and those attributable to transportation
system disruption that would surely result could easily total in the
billions of dollars. We are operating under the premise that, in
today's environment, it is necessary to take reasonable measures to
reduce the likelihood that such events will be successful. The presence
of such measures should, in fact, help deter potential attacks.
The measures in the rule have the potential of reducing the likelihood
of success of such an attack. Moreover, the American public has an
expectation that reasonable measures will be taken to help ensure the
security of hazardous materials present in our society so they are not
used for nefarious purposes. Companies are taking or have already taken
steps to develop systematic security plans and security awareness
training. These requirements will help ensure a consistent approach in
the area while permitting flexibilities that are important in keeping
costs at reasonable levels.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comments 08/10/04 69 FR 50987
Comment Period End 10/18/04
NPRM Comment Period End 10/29/06
NPRM 12/21/06 71 FR 76834
NPRM Comment Period End 02/20/07
Final Rule 12/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
HM Docket: HM-232E; RSPA-2004-18730
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Susan Gorsky
Senior Regulations Specialist
Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-8553
Email: susan.gorsky@dot.gov
RIN: 2137-AE02
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-S
[[Page 69910]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (TREAS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
To promote prosperous and stable American and world economies,
including promoting domestic economic growth and
maintaining our Nation's leadership in global economic
issues, supervising national banks and thrift institutions,
and helping to bring residents of distressed communities
into the economic mainstream.
To manage the Government's finances by protecting the revenue
and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the
Internal Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue
functions, financing the Federal Government and managing
its fiscal operations, and producing our Nation's coins and
currency.
To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems from
those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or
to compromise U.S. national security interests, while
keeping them free and open to legitimate users.
Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department and
its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement the
laws as enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It is the
policy of the Department to comply with the requirement to issue a
notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public comments
before adopting a final rule. Also, in particular cases, the Department
invites interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while
a proposed rule is being developed.
In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the President signed
the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 into law on October 26, 2001. Since then,
the Department has accorded the highest priority to developing and
issuing regulations to implement the provisions in this historic
legislation that target money laundering and terrorist financing. These
efforts, which will continue during the coming year, are reflected in
the regulatory priorities of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN).
To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department to
adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866, and to develop regulations that maximize
aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the economic and
paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses subject to those
regulations.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office
On November 26, 2002, the President signed into law the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA). The new law, which was enacted as a
consequence of the events of September 11, 2001, established a
temporary Federal reinsurance program under which the Federal
Government shares the risk of losses associated with certain types of
terrorist acts with commercial property and casualty insurers. The Act,
originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, was extended to
December 31, 2007 by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005
(TRIEA).
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions is
responsible for developing and promulgating regulations implementing
TRIA, as extended and amended by TRIEA. The Terrorism Risk Insurance
Program Office, which is part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Financial Institutions, is responsible for operational
implementation of TRIA. The purposes of this legislation are to address
market disruptions, ensure the continued widespread availability and
affordability of commercial property and casualty insurance for
terrorism risk, and to allow for a transition period for the private
markets to stabilize and build capacity while preserving State
insurance regulation and consumer protections.
Over the past year, the Office of the Assistant Secretary has continued
the ongoing work of implementing TRIA. Congress, during 2007, has been
deliberating the further extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance
Program. Should the Program be extended, Treasury will issue guidance
and regulations implementing any changes authorized by legislation in
2008. Alternatively, should the Program not be extended, Treasury will
issue guidance as appropriate to effect the cessation of operations.
Customs Revenue Functions
On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (the Act), establishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Act transferred the United States Customs Service from the
Department of the Treasury to the DHS, where it is was known as the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Effective March 31,
2007, DHS changed the name of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pursuant to
section 872(a)(2) of the Act (6 USC 452(a)(2)) in a Federal Register
notice (72 FR 20131) published on April 23, 2007. Notwithstanding the
transfer of the Customs Service to DHS, the Act provides that the
Secretary of the Treasury retains sole legal authority over the customs
revenue functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the
Treasury to delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue
functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department
Order No. 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the
Secretary of Homeland Security authority to prescribe regulations
pertaining to the customs revenue functions. This Order further
provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole authority
to approve any such regulations concerning import quotas or trade bans,
user fees, marking, labeling, copyright and trademark enforcement, and
the completion of entry or substance of entry summary including duty
assessment and collection, classification, valuation, application of
the U.S. Harmonized Schedules, eligibility or requirements for
preferential trade programs and the establishment of recordkeeping
requirements relating thereto.
During the past fiscal year, among the Treasury- approved CBP customs-
revenue function regulations issued were a final rule adopting the
interim regulations that implemented the preferential trade benefit
provisions of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act and a final rule adopting the interim rule regarding
procedures on the refund of excess customs duties paid on entries of
textile or apparel goods entitled to retroactive application of
preferential tariff treatment under the Dominican Republic-Central
America-United States Free Trade Agreement (also known as ``CAFTA-
DR''). CBP also published interim rules regarding the implementation of
the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions
of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act,
the United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act, and the
United States-Morocco Free Trade Implementation Act. In addition, CBP
amended the regulations on an interim basis to implement the duty-free
[[Page 69911]]
provisions of the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity Through Partnership
Encouragement Act of 2006 (the ``HOPE Act'') which concerned the
extension of certain trade benefits to Haiti in the Tax Relief and
Health Care Act of 2006.
During this past year, CBP also amended its regulations on an interim
basis to establish special entry requirements applicable to shipments
of softwood lumber products from Canada for purposes of monitoring the
2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Governments of Canada and
the United States. In addition, in conjunction with the final
regulations adopted by the Department of Commerce, CBP finalized its
proposed rule on the entry of certain cement products from Mexico
requiring a U.S. Commerce Department import license based on the
``Agreement on Trade in Cement'' between the governments of the United
States and Mexico.
Another important regulation CBP finalized this year is one which
clarifies the responsibilities of importers of food, drugs, devices,
and cosmetics under the basic CBP importation bond which provided a
reasonable time period (30 days) to allow the Food and Drug
Administration to perform its enforcement functions with respect to the
merchandise which is conditionally released under bond for
admissibility determinations on these covered articles.
During fiscal year 2008, Treasury and CBP plan to finalize several
interim regulations involving the customs revenue functions not
delegated to DHS. Among these are the following interim regulations
that implement the trade benefit provisions of the Trade Act of 2002:
The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
The African Growth and Opportunity Act
CBP also plans to finalize interim regulations this fiscal year to
implement the preferential trade benefit provisions of the United
States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the United
States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, and the United States-Morocco Free
Trade Agreement. CBP also expects to issue interim regulations
implementing the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act and the United States-Central America- Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act.
CBP also plans to publish a final rule adopting an interim rule that
was published on the Country of Origin of Textile and Apparel Products
which implemented the changes brought about, in part, by the expiration
of the Agreement on Textile and Clothing and the resulting elimination
of quotas on the entry of textile and apparel products from World Trade
Organizations (WTO) members.
In addition, Treasury and CBP plan to propose uniform rules governing
the determination of the country of origin of imported merchandise. The
uniform rules would extend the application of the North American Free
Trade Agreement country of origin rules to all trade.
Treasury and CBP also plan to continue moving forward with amendments
to improve its regulatory procedures begun under the authority granted
by the Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free
Trade Implementation Act (Customs Mod Act). These efforts, in
accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, have involved
and will continue to involve significant input from the importing
public. CBP will also continue to test new programs to see if they work
before proceeding with proposed rulemaking to permanently establish the
programs. Consistent with this practice, we expect to finalize a
proposal to permanently establish the remote location filing program,
which has been a test program under the Customs Mod Act. This rule
would allow remote location filing of electronic entries of merchandise
from a location other than where the merchandise will arrive.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (Fund) was
established by the Community Development Banking and Financial
Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). The primary purpose
of the Fund is to promote economic revitalization and community
development through the following programs: the Community Development
Financial Institutions (CDFI) Program, the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA)
Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the
New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program.
In fiscal year 2008, subject to funding availability, the Fund will
provide financial assistance awards and technical assistance grants
through the CDFI Program. Through the NACA Program, subject to funding
availability, the Fund will provide technical assistance grants and
financial assistance awards to promote the development of CDFIs that
serve Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities.
Subject to funding availability for the BEA Program, the Fund will
provide financial incentives to encourage insured depository
institutions to engage in eligible development activities and to make
equity investments in CDFIs.
Through the NMTC Program, the CDFI Fund will provide allocations of tax
credits to qualified community development entities (CDEs). The CDEs in
turn provide tax credits to private sector investors in exchange for
their investment dollars; investment proceeds received by the CDEs are
be used to make loans and equity investments in low-income communities.
The Fund administers the NMTC Program in coordination with the Office
of Tax Policy and the Internal Revenue Service.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
As chief administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), FinCEN's
regulations constitute the core of the Department's anti-money
laundering and counter terrorism financing programmatic efforts.
FinCEN's responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from,
that role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S.
national security by making the financial system increasingly resistant
to abuse by money launderers, terrorists and their financial
supporters, and other perpetrators of crime.
The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the BSA
to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file reports
and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of
usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters, or in the conduct
of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against
international terrorism. Those regulations also require designated
financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and
compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has
established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the
financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including
terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity.
These objectives and priorities include: (1) issuing, interpreting, and
[[Page 69912]]
enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2)
supporting, working with, and, as appropriate, overseeing compliance
examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3)
managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data
related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a Government-wide access service to
that same data, and for network users with overlapping interests; (5)
conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement,
regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6)
coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and anti-money
laundering initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence
agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
During fiscal year 2007, FinCEN issued the following final rules: a
final rule on enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts
maintained for certain foreign banks; a final rule that exempts casinos
from the requirement to file currency transaction reports on jackpots
from slot machines and video lottery terminals and that also exempts,
under certain conditions, reportable transactions in currency involving
certain money plays and bills inserted into electronic gaming devices;
and one final rule and a renewal of a rule without change imposing
special measures against a foreign financial institution deemed to be
of primary money laundering concern pursuant to section 311 of the USA
PATRIOT Act.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2008 include the
following projects:
Anti-Money Laundering Programs. Pursuant to section 352 of the
USA PATRIOT Act, certain financial institutions are
required to establish anti-money laundering programs.
FinCEN expects to finalize the anti-money laundering
program rule for dealers in precious metals, precious
stones, or jewels. FinCEN will continue to research and
analyze issues regarding potential regulation of the loan
and finance industry (including pawnbrokers). Finally,
FinCEN also will continue to consider regulatory options
regarding certain corporate and trust service providers.
Money Services Businesses. FinCEN will continue to implement
and refine its strategy with regard to money services
businesses, including: using analytical tools and
establishing partnerships with law enforcement to identify
unregistered money services businesses; continuing to
revise, simplify, clarify and, where possible, narrow the
regulatory framework for money services businesses; and
developing and delivering internal and external education,
outreach, and training on relevant regulatory topics
regarding the money services business industry for both the
money services business and banking industries, law
enforcement, and other regulatory agencies.
SAR Confidentiality. FinCEN will coordinate with regulatory
authorities on an amendment with respect to existing
regulations pertaining to the confidentiality of Suspicious
Activity Reports.
Other Requirements. FinCEN will consider the need for regulatory action
in conjunction with the feasibility study prepared pursuant to the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 concerning the
issue of obtaining information about certain cross-border funds
transfers and transmittals of funds. FinCEN also will continue to issue
proposed and final rules pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT
Act, as appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects to propose various
technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with its
ongoing, comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance
regulatory efficiency.
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of the
Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy), promulgates regulations that
interpret and implement the Internal Revenue Code and related tax
statutes. The purpose of these regulations is to carry out the tax
policy determined by Congress in a fair, impartial and reasonable
manner, taking into account the intent of Congress, the realities of
relevant transactions, the need for the Government to administer the
rules and monitor compliance, and the overall integrity of the Federal
tax system. The goal is to make the regulations practical and as clear
and simple as possible.
Most Internal Revenue Service regulations interpret tax statutes to
resolve ambiguities or fill gaps in the tax statutes. This includes
interpreting particular words, applying rules to broad classes of
circumstances, and resolving apparent and potential conflicts between
various statutory provisions.
During fiscal year 2008 the Internal Revenue Service will accord
priority to the following regulatory projects:
Unified Rule for Loss on Subsidiary Stock. Prior to the
opinion in Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357 (2001),
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.1502-20 (the loss disallowance rule or LDR)
addressed both noneconomic and duplicated loss on subsidiary stock by
members of consolidated groups. In Rite Aid, the Federal Circuit
rejected the validity of the duplicated loss component of the LDR.
Following Rite Aid, the IRS and Treasury issued temporary regulations,
Treas. Reg. Sec. Sec. 1.337(d)-2T (to address noneconomic loss on
subsidiary stock) and 1.1502-35T (to address loss duplication within
consolidated groups). The regulations were promulgated as an interim
measure to address both concerns while a broader study of the issues
was conducted. Both regulations were finalized, but the preamble to
each regulation alerted taxpayers of the ongoing nature of the study
and the intent to propose a new approach to both issues. In January
2007, the IRS and Treasury proposed regulations that addressed
noneconomic and duplicated stock loss, as well as certain related
issues presented by the investment adjustment system. During fiscal
year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to finalize those regulations.
LIBOR Swaps Used to Hedge a Tax-exempt Bond Issue. Issuers of
tax-exempt bonds have historically hedged their variable-rate bonds
with swaps that are based on a tax-exempt market index. Recently,
hedges have evolved to where the floating rate is now frequently
determined based on a taxable interest rate or taxable interest rate
index, such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). Issuers
assert that a taxable-index hedge is better than a hedge based on tax-
exempt rates because the taxable market is more liquid, producing more
transparent pricing. Moreover, a taxable-index hedge produces
substantial cost savings to issuers. The industry, however, is
uncertain about how the arbitrage rules under section 148 apply to
taxable-index hedges. This question is particularly troubling for an
issuer that issues variable-rate, advance refunding bonds because the
issuer needs to know the yield on its bond issue to know its permitted
investment yield for the defeasance escrow. During fiscal year 2008,
the IRS and Treasury intend to issue proposed regulations that will
clarify how the arbitrage rules apply to taxable-index hedges and
provide other corrections to the arbitrage regulations under section
148.
Stripped Interests in Bond and Preferred Stock Funds. Sections
1286(f) and 305(e)(7) were added to the Internal
[[Page 69913]]
Revenue Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA) to
address the treatment of stripped interests in bond and preferred stock
funds. Section 1286(f) provides for the IRS and Treasury to prescribe
regulations applying rules, similar to the rules of sections 1286 and
305(e), to account for stripped interests in an account or entity
substantially all of the assets of which consist of bonds, preferred
stock, or a combination thereof. There are no specific statutory rules
directly addressing stripping transactions with respect to common stock
or other equity interests (other than preferred stock). In addition,
section 305(e) does not address the proper treatment of dividend
coupons separated from stripped preferred stock. Specific rules are
needed to prevent the generation of artificial losses upon the
disposition of stripped interests and to prevent the deferral of the
recognition of taxable income associated with these types of stripped
interests. During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to
issue proposed regulations under section 1286(f) providing rules to
account for these stripped interests that are similar to those of
sections 1286 and 305(e) and which will prevent the generation of
artificial losses and require the current accrual of taxable income on
the stripped interests.
Deduction and Capitalization of Costs for Tangible Assets.
Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code allows a current deduction for
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any
trade or business. Under section 263(a) of the Code, no immediate
deduction is allowed for amounts paid out for new buildings or for
permanent improvements or betterments made to increase the value of any
property or estate. Those expenditures are capital expenditures that
generally may be recovered only in future taxable years, as the
property is used in the taxpayer's trade or business. It often is not
clear whether an amount paid to acquire, produce, or improve property
is a deductible expense or a capital expenditure. Although existing
regulations provide that a deductible repair expense is an expenditure
that does not materially add to the value of the property or
appreciably prolong its life, the IRS and Treasury believe that
additional clarification is needed to reduce uncertainty and
controversy in this area. In August 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued
proposed regulations in this area and received numerous comments.
During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to repropose
regulations in this area in light of those comments.
Intangible Property and Transfer Pricing Initiatives. On
August 22, 2005, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations
providing guidance on ``cost sharing arrangements,'' where related
parties agree to share the costs and risks of intangible development in
proportion to their reasonable expectations of their share of
anticipated benefits from their separate exploitation of the developed
intangibles. The proposed regulations are designed to prevent abuses
possible under the existing rules, and to ensure that Congressional
intent underlying section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code is fulfilled
by requiring that cost sharing arrangements between controlled
taxpayers produce results consistent with the arm's length standard. In
August 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued temporary regulations that
provide guidance regarding the treatment of controlled services
transactions under section 482 and the allocation of income from
intangibles, in particular with respect to contributions by a
controlled party to the value of an intangible owned by another
controlled party. The regulations provide much-needed guidance on the
transfer pricing methods to determine the arm's length price in a
services transaction, including a new method that allows routine back-
office services to be charged at cost with no markup. As part of a
continuing effort to modernize the transfer pricing rules to keep them
current with changing business practices, the IRS and Treasury intend
to finalize both the cost-sharing and services regulations during
fiscal year 2008. Additionally, proposed regulations will be issued
under section 367(d) of the Code, which provides that a transfer by a
U.S. person of an intangible to a foreign corporation in certain
nonrecognition transactions will be treated as a sale of that property
for a series of payments contingent on the property's productivity,
use, or disposition. The IRS and Treasury will coordinate the
provisions to prevent intangible value going to offshore affiliates
without arm's length consideration, whether intangibles are transferred
directly, embedded in the performance of services, contributed via
incorporation or reorganization, or conveyed in the course of a cost
sharing arrangement. The IRS and Treasury also intend to issue proposed
regulations addressing the source and allocation of income and expense
related to the operation of a global dealing operation.
Foreign Tax Credit Guidance Initiatives. The IRS and Treasury
intend to issue final regulations under section 901 of the Internal
Revenue Code and guidance under other provisions of the Code during
fiscal year 2008 to address the foreign tax credit and related issues.
On August 3, 2006, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations to
address the operation of the foreign tax credit rules in the context of
foreign consolidated regimes and with respect to so-called hybrid
entities, entities that are treated as separate taxable entities under
either U.S. or foreign law but as transparent entities under the other
country's tax law. During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend
to issue final regulations in this area. On March 29, 2007, the IRS and
Treasury issued proposed regulations that address the inappropriate
creation or transfer of foreign tax liability in order to obtain
foreign tax credits. The IRS and Treasury intend to issue final
regulations in this area during fiscal year 2008 as well. The IRS and
Treasury also expect to issue additional guidance that will provide
rules relating to the reduction in the number of foreign tax credit
categories and other provisions added by the AJCA. The guidance will
provide for tax treatment that is consistent with the policies of the
foreign tax credit provisions and applicable law.
Subpart F Anti-deferral Regime Initiatives. The IRS and
Treasury intend to issue guidance during fiscal year 2008 to address
the use of contract manufacturing arrangements to produce property sold
by controlled foreign corporations. The guidance will include rules
that address the manufacturing exception to foreign base company sales
income under section 954(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The rules
will also provid e related guidance under the branch rule of section
954(d)(2). On January 24, 2007, the IRS and Treasury issued Notice
2007-13, which announced that the IRS and Treasury will amend the
foreign base company services rules to limit the definition of
substantial assistance. During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury
intend to issue proposed regulations that will limit the definition of
substantial assistance, and therefore limit the instances in which
foreign base company services income may result.
Nuclear Power Tax Incentives. Section 468A of the Internal
Revenue Code provides a current deduction for amounts contributed to a
qualified nuclear decommissioning reserve fund relating to existing
nuclear power plants. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Act) made
several changes to
[[Page 69914]]
section 468A. Specifically, the Act eliminated certain limitations that
prior law had placed on the amount that a taxpayer may deduct for the
taxable year. Further, the Act allows a ``pour-over payment,'' or
``special transfer'' into the qualified fund of amounts that prior law
had prevented from being contributed to the qualified fund in prior
taxable years, and new section 468A(f)(2) permits taxpayers to claim
ratably over the remaining useful life of the nuclear plant a deduction
for the amounts contributed to the qualified fund in the special
transfer. A separate schedule of ruling amounts (a ``schedule of
deduction amounts'') must be obtained from the Secretary before these
deductions may be claimed. In addition, the Act requires taxpayers to
obtain a new schedule of ruling amounts when the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) extends the operating license of the plant. Congress
also provided a tax incentive for the construction of advanced nuclear
power plants. In particular, the Act added section 45J to the Code,
which permits a taxpayer producing electricity at a qualified advanced
nuclear power facility to claim a credit for each kilowatt-hour of
electricity produced for the eight-year period beginning when the
facility is placed in service. A taxpayer may only claim the credit for
production of electricity equal to the ratio of the allocated capacity
that the taxpayer receives from the Secretary to the rated nameplate
capacity of the taxpayer's facility. Section 45J(b)(3) provides that
the Secretary shall allocate the national megawatt capacity limitation
in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe. The IRS and Treasury,
after consultation with the Department of Energy, published Notice
2006-40 providing guidance with respect to procedures for applying for
an allocation of the national megawatt capacity limitation and other
issues arising under section 45J. As a result of these statutory
changes, during fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to (1)
issue temporary regulations providing guidance to taxpayers regarding
the new substantive provisions under section 468A, including how to
obtain the new schedules, as well as update the existing regulations
under section 468A to reflect statutory changes; and (2) issue
temporary regulations to incorporate the rules set forth in Notice
2006-40, as well as to provide other necessary guidance under section
45J.
Understatement of Taxpayer's Liability by Tax Return Preparer.
The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 amended the tax
return preparer penalty under section 6694 of the Internal Revenue Code
to include preparers of estate and gift tax returns, employment tax
returns, excise tax returns and returns of exempt organizations. The
standard of conduct under section 6694(a) for underpayments due to
unreasonable positions taken on tax returns was also amended in two
ways. First, for undisclosed positions, the realistic possibility
standard was replaced with a requirement that there be a reasonable
belief that the tax treatment of a position taken on a tax return would
more likely than not be sustained on its merits. Second, for disclosed
positions, the not frivolous standard was replaced with a requirement
that there be a reasonable basis for the tax treatment of a position
taken on a tax return. Finally, the penalty amounts under both section
6694(a) and 6694(b), relating to understatements due to willful or
reckless conduct, were increased. The amendments to section 6694 were
effective for tax returns prepared after May 25, 2007. In June 2007,
the IRS and Treasury issued Notice 2007-54, which provided transitional
relief relating to the standard of conduct under section 6694(a).
During fiscal year 2008, the IRS and Treasury intend to issue
regulations providing guidance relating to the tax return preparer
penalty, as amended. The IRS and Treasury also intend to issue guidance
regarding the administration of this penalty.
Rules under the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Significant
new rules regarding the funding of qualified defined benefit pension
plans were enacted as part of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA).
The IRS and Treasury have prioritized the various pieces of guidance
required to comply with those rules and will be issuing guidance in the
form of proposed regulations during fiscal year 2008. Specifically,
these proposed regulations will include rules related to the
measurement of assets and liabilities and the determination of the
minimum required contributions under new section 430 of the Internal
Revenue Code. The IRS and Treasury also intend to issue guidance on the
provisions of the PPA related to automatic enrollment in salary
deferral plans.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) was created by
Congress to charter national banks, to oversee a nationwide system of
banking institutions, and to assure that national banks are safe and
sound, competitive and profitable, and capable of serving in the best
possible manner the banking needs of their customers.
The OCC seeks to assure a banking system in which national banks
soundly manage their risks, maintain the ability to compete effectively
with other providers of financial services, meet the needs of their
communities for credit and financial services, comply with laws and
regulations, and provide fair access to financial services and fair
treatment of their customers.
The OCC's regulatory program furthers these goals. For example,
pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1996 (EGRPRA), the OCC, together with the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the
Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union
Administration (the agencies), has conducted a review of its
regulations to identify opportunities to streamline our regulations and
reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. The agencies' review included:
(1) issuing six notices, published in the Federal Register, that
solicit comment from the industries we regulate and the public on ways
to reduce regulatory burden with respect to specific categories of
regulations; and (2) conducting outreach meetings with bankers and
consumer groups in cities across the country for the same purpose. The
agencies have fulfilled the statutory requirement to publish all
categories of their regulations for public comment. We also have
completed the summary of the comments and recommendations received, as
the statute requires, together with a draft report to Congress on our
conclusions. The final report is expected to be submitted to Congress
before the end of fiscal year 2007.
Significant final rules issued during fiscal year 2007 include:
Management Official Interlocks (12 CFR Part 26).The Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision (banking
agencies) issued a joint interim rule with request for
comment onJanuary 11, 2007 (72 FR 1274) and joint final
rule on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38753) to implement section
610 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of
2006, Pub. L. 109-351, - 610, 120 Stat. ----, (Oct. 13,
2006). The rule modifies the relevant metropolitan
statistical area
[[Page 69915]]
prohibition under the Depository Institution Management
Interlocks Act (12 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.) to allow a
management official of one depository organization to serve
as a management official of an unaffiliated depository
organization if the depository organizations (or a
depository institution affiliate thereof) have offices in
the same relevant metropolitan statistical area and one of
the depository organizations in question has total assets
of least $50 million.
Expanded Examination Cycle for Certain Small Insured
Depository Institutions and U.S. Branches and Agencies of
Foreign Banks (12 CFR Part 4). The banking agencies issued
an interim rule with request for comment on April 10, 2007
(72 FR 17798) and a joint final rule on September 25, 2007
(72 FR 54347) to implement the Financial Services
Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 and related legislation (the
Examination Amendments). The Examination Amendments permit
insured depository institutions that have up to $500
million in total assets, and that meet certain other
criteria, to qualify for an 18-month, rather than 12-month
on-site examination cycle.
Special Lending Limits for Residential Real Estate Loans,
Small Business Loans, and Small Farm Loans (12 CFR Part
32). The OCC issued an interim rule with request for
comment on June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31441) to permanently
incorporate special lending limits for 1-4 family
residential real estate loans, small business loans, and
small farm loans or extensions of credit. The OCC will
issue a final rule based on comments received.
The OCC's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2008 principally
include the issuance of a final rule based on our proposed package of
regulatory burden reducing amendments, completion of rulemakings
required by the FACT Act, and the implementation of new regulatory
capital standards. The OCC plans to issue the following:
Identity Theft Detection, Prevention, and Mitigation Program
for Financial Institutions and Creditors (12 CFR Parts 30
and 41). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift
Supervision, National Credit Union Administration, and
Federal Trade Commission (the agencies) are planning to
issue a final rule to establish guidelines and regulations
to implement sections 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). Section 114
requires the agencies to issue jointly guidelines for
financial institutions and creditors identifying patterns,
practices, and specific forms of activity that indicate the
possible existence of identity theft. In addition, the
agencies must issue regulations requiring each financial
institution and creditor to establish reasonable policies
and procedures to implement the guidelines. The regulations
must contain a provision requiring a card issuer to notify
the cardholder if the card issuer receives a notice of
change of address for an existing account and a short time
later receives a request for an additional or replacement
card. Section 315 requires the agencies to jointly issue
regulations providing guidance regarding reasonable
policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports
should employ when the user receives a notice of address
discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency informing the
user of a substantial discrepancy between the address for
the consumer that the user provided to request the consumer
report and the address(es) in the file for the consumer.
The agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on July
18, 2006. 71 FR 40786.
Fair Credit Reporting; Affiliate Marketing Regulations (12 CFR
Part 41). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift
Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration (the
agencies) are planning to issue a final rule to implement
the affiliate sharing provisions of section 214 of the FACT
Act. The final rule would implement the consumer notice and
opt-out provisions of the FACT Act regarding the sharing of
consumer information among affiliates for making
solicitations to a consumer for marketing purposes. The
agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 15,
2004. 69 FR 42502.
Fair Credit Reporting, Accuracy and Integrity of Information
Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies (12 CFR Part 41).
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision,
National Credit Union Administration, and Federal Trade
Commission (the agencies) are planning to issue a joint
notice of proposed rulemaking to implement section 312 of
the FACT Act. Section 312 requires the agencies to issue
guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of
information entities furnish to a consumer reporting
agency. Section 312 also requires the agencies to consult
and coordinate with each other in order to issue consistent
and comparable regulations requiring entities that furnish
information to a consumer reporting agency to establish
reasonable policies and procedures for the implementation
of the guidelines. In addition, Section 312 requires the
agencies to jointly prescribe regulations that identify the
circumstances under which a furnisher of information to a
consumer reporting agency shall be required to
reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of
information contained in a consumer report on the consumer
based on the consumer's direct request to the furnisher.
The agencies issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking on March 22, 2006. 71 FR 14419.
Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of New Basel
Capital Accord (Basel II) (12 CFR Part 3). The banking
agencies plan to issue a final rule based on the
International Convergence of Capital Measurement and
Capital Standards: A Revised Framework, the new capital
adequacy standards, commonly known as Basel II. The Federal
banking agencies published the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on September 25, 2006 at 71 FR 55830
soliciting industry comments on a proposal for implementing
Basel II in the United States. In particular, the NPRM
described significant elements of the Advanced Internal
Ratings-Based approach for credit risk and the Advanced
Measurement Approaches for operational risk (together, the
advanced approaches). The NPRM specified criteria that a
banking organization must meet to use the advanced
approaches. Under the advanced approaches, a banking
organization would use internal estimates of certain risk
components as key inputs in the determination of their
regulatory capital requirements. The OCC has included this
rulemaking project in Part II of the Regulatory Plan.
[[Page 69916]]
Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk (12 CFR Part 3). The
banking agencies plan to issue a final rule to amend the
current market risk capital requirements for national
banks. The banking agencies issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking on September 25, 2006 at 71 FR 55958. The rule
would make the current market risk capital requirements
generally more risk sensitive with respect to the capital
treatment of trading activities in banks and bank holding
companies. Specifically, the banking agencies propose to
require banks to hold additional capital for the risk of
default of trading positions beyond the 10-day horizon
required by the current market risk capital requirement.
Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines;
Capital Maintenance: Basel II Standardized Approach. As
part of the OCC's ongoing efforts to develop and refine the
capital standards to enhance their risk sensitivity and
ensure the safety and soundness of the national banking
system, the OCC plans to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking to amend various provisions of the capital
rules. The changes involve amending the current capital
rules for those banks that will not be subject to the
advanced internal ratings-based approaches.
Interagency Proposal for Model Privacy Form under Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act (12 CFR Part 40). The banking agencies, along
with the National Credit Union Administration, the Federal
Trade Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the agencies)
issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to
section 728 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act
of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-351) on March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14940).
Specifically, the agencies proposed a safe harbor model
privacy form that financial institutions may use to provide
the disclosures under the privacy rules. The agencies are
now working on a final rule.
Regulatory Burden Reduction and Technical Amendments.The OCC
plans to issue a final rule to further the goal of reducing
regulatory burden for national banks. The OCC issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking on July 3, 2007 (72 FR
36550). The proposed changes would relieve burden by
eliminating or streamlining existing requirements or
procedures, enhancing national banks' flexibility in
conducting authorized activities, eliminating uncertainty
by harmonizing a rule with other OCC regulations or with
the rules of another agency, or by making technical
revisions to update OCC rules to reflect changes in the law
or in other regulations. In a few cases, proposed revisions
also would be made to add or enhance requirements for
safety and soundness reasons.
Office of Thrift Supervision
As the primary Federal regulator of the thrift industry, the Office of
Thrift Supervision (OTS) has established regulatory objectives and
priorities to supervise thrift institutions effectively and
efficiently. These objectives include maintaining and enhancing the
safety and soundness of the thrift industry; a flexible, responsive
regulatory structure that enables savings associations to provide
credit and other financial services to their communities, particularly
housing mortgage credit; and a risk-focused, timely approach to
supervision.
OTS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the banking agencies)
continue to work together on regulations where they share the
responsibility to implement statutory requirements. For example, the
banking agencies are working jointly on several rules to update capital
standards to maintain and improve consistency in agency rules. These
rules implement revisions to the International Convergence of Capital
Management and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework (Basel II
Framework) and include:
Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of Revised Basel
Capital Accord. On September 25, 2006, the Agencies
published a joint NPRM prescribing a new risk-based capital
adequacy framework that would require some, and permit
other, qualifying banks, savings associations, and bank
holding companies (banking organizations) to apply certain
approaches contained in the Basel II Framework.
Specifically, the NPRM would prescribe an internal ratings-
based approach (IRB) to calculate regulatory credit risk
capital requirements, and to use advanced measurement
approaches to calculate regulatory operational risk capital
requirements. The NPRM specified the criteria that a
banking organization must meet to use these advanced
approaches. 71 FR 55830 (Sept 25, 2006). The banking
agencies issued related proposed guidance on credit risk
and operation risk (72 FR 9084; Feb. 2, 2007). The banking
agencies will issue final rules and guidance in fiscal year
(FY) 2008.
Risk-Based Capital Standards; Market Risk. On September 25,
2006, the Agencies issued an NPRM on Market Risk. In this
rule, OTS proposed to require savings associations to
measure and hold capital to cover their exposure to market
risk. The other banking agencies proposed to revise their
existing market risk capital rules to implement changes to
the market risk treatment contained in Basel II Framework.
These changes would enhance risk sensitivity of the
existing market risk capital rules and introduce
requirements for public disclosure of certain information
about market risk (71 FR 55958; Sept. 25, 2006). The
banking agencies will issue final market risk rules in FY
2008.
Risk-Based Capital Standards; Standardized Approach. The
banking agencies also plan to issue an NPRM implementing
the Standardized Approach to credit risk and approaches to
operational risk that are contained in the Basel II
Framework. Banking organizations would be able to elect to
adopt these proposed revisions or remain subject to the
agencies' existing risk-based capital rules, unless the
banking organization uses the Advanced Capital Adequacy
Framework described above. This NPRM will also be issued in
FY 2008 and would replace the NPRM on Domestic Capital
Modifications, which was published at 71 FR 77446 on Dec.
26, 2006.
Significant final rules issued during fiscal year 2007 include:
Subordinated Debt Securities and Mandatorily Redeemable
Preferred Stock. OTS issued a final rule updating existing
rules governing the inclusion of subordinated debt and
mandatorily redeemable stock in supplementary capital. The
final rule deleted unnecessary and outdated requirements
and conformed OTS rules more closely to the other banking
agencies (72 FR 27862; Feb. 28, 2007).
Prohibited Service at Savings and Loan Holding Companies. This
interim final rule implemented new section 19(e) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which prohibits any person
who has been convicted of a
[[Page 69917]]
criminal offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or
money laundering (or has agreed to enter into a pretrial
diversion or similar program in connection with a
prosecution for such an offense) from holding certain
positions with respect to a savings and loan holding
company. The interim final rule incorporated the statutory
restrictions, prescribed procedures for applying for an OTS
order granting case-by-case exemptions from the
restrictions, and included two regulatory exemptions from
the restrictions (72 FR 29548; May 8, 2007). OTS will
finalize the interim rule in FY 2008.
Community Reinvestment Act--Interagency Uniformity. OTS issued
a final rule revising its CRA regulations in four areas to
reestablish uniformity between its regulations and those of
the other federal banking agencies. The final rule was
published on March 22, 2007, at 72 FR 13429.
Stock Benefit Plans in Mutual-to-Stock Conversions and Mutual
Holding Company Structures. OTS issued final regulations
regarding stock benefit plans established after mutual-to-
stock conversions or in mutual holding company structures.
OTS also made several other minor changes to the
regulations governing mutual-to-stock conversions and
minority stock issuances (72 FR 35145; June 27, 2007).
OTS anticipates implementing sections of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act) as follows:
Fair Credit Reporting - Affiliate Marketing Regulations. The
banking agencies and the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA) plan to issue a final rule
implementing section 214 of the FACT Act. The rule would
implement the consumer notice and opt-out provisions of the
FACT Act regarding the sharing of consumer information
among affiliates for marketing purposes. The agencies
published a proposed rule on July 15, 2004, at 69 FR 42502.
Fair Credit Reporting - Accuracy & Integrity of Information
Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies. The banking
agencies, NCUA, and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plan to
issue a joint proposed rule and joint final rule to
implement section 312 of the FACT Act. Section 312 requires
the agencies to consult and coordinate with each other in
order to issue consistent and comparable regulations
requiring persons that furnish information to a consumer
reporting agency to establish reasonable policies and
procedures for the implementation of the agencies'
guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of
information relating to consumers. In addition, the
agencies are to jointly prescribe regulations that identify
the circumstances under which a furnisher of information to
a consumer reporting agency shall be required to
reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of
information contained in a consumer report based on the
consumer's direct request to the furnisher. The agencies
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14419.
Fair Credit Reporting- Identity Theft Red Flags and Address
Discrepancies. The banking agencies, NCUA, and FTC plan to
issue a final rule implementing section 114 and 315 of the
FACT Act. Section 114 requires the agencies to develop
guidelines for use in identifying patterns, practices, and
specific forms of activity that indicate the possible
existence of identity theft. It also requires the agencies
to issue regulations requiring each financial institution
and creditor to establish reasonable policies and
procedures to implement such guidelines. The regulations
must contain a provision requiring a card issuer to notify
the cardholder if the card issuer receives a notice of
change of address for an existing account, and a short time
later receives a request for an additional or replacement
card. Section 315 requires the agencies to jointly issue
regulations providing guidance regarding reasonable
policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports
should employ when such user receives a notice of address
discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency informing the
user of a substantial discrepancy between the address for
the consumer that the user provided to request the consumer
report and the address in the file for the consumer. The
agencies published a proposed rule on July 18, 2006, at 71
FR 40786.
OTS anticipates implementing section 728 of the Financial Services
Regulatory Relief Act by amending its privacy rules under the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act to include a safe harbor model privacy form. The
banking agencies, NCUA, FTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(FTC), and SEC published a proposed rule on March 29, 2007.
OTS will decide during fiscal year 2008 whether and, if so, to what
extent, additional regulation is needed to implement the prohibition
against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act. This would be in furtherance of the
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OTS published on August 8, 2007,
at 72 FR 43570.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations
to carry out the Federal laws relating to the manufacture and commerce
of, and collection of Federal taxes on, alcohol and tobacco products,
and the collection of Federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.
TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
Regulate the alcohol and tobacco industries, including systems
for licenses and permits;
Assure the collection of all alcohol, tobacco, and firearms
and ammunition taxes, and obtain a high level of voluntary
compliance with all laws governing those industries;
Suppress commercial bribery, consumer deception, and other
prohibited practices in the alcohol beverage industry; and
Assist the States and other F ederal agencies in their efforts
to eliminate interstate trafficking in, and the sale and
distribution of, cigarettes in avoidance of State taxes.
In 2008, TTB will continue to pursue its multi-year program of
modernizing its regulations in title 27 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. This program involves updating and revising the
regulations to be more clear, current, and concise, with an emphasis on
the application of plain language principles. TTB laid the groundwork
for this program in 2002 when it started to recodify its regulations in
order to present them in a more logical sequence. In FY 2005, TTB
evaluated all of the 36 CFR parts in title 27 and prioritized them as
``high,'' ``medium,'' or ``low'' in terms of the need for complete
revision or regulation modernization. TTB determined importance based
on industry member numbers, revenue collected, and enforcement and
compliance issues identified through field audits and permit
qualifications, statutory changes, significant industry innovations,
and other factors. The 10 CFR parts that TTB ranked as ``high'' include
the five parts directing operation of the major taxpayers under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986: Part 19 - Distilled Spirits
[[Page 69918]]
Plants; Part 24 - Wine; Part 25 - Beer; Part 40 - Manufacture of
Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes; and Part 53 -
Manufacturers Excise Taxes - Firearms and Ammunition. These five CFR
parts represent nearly all the tax revenue that TTB collects, amounting
to $14.8 billion in FY 2006. The remaining five parts rated ``high''
consist of regulations covering imports and exports (Part 27 -
Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine and Beer; Part 28 - Exportation
of Alcohol; and Part 41 - Exportation of Tobacco Products and Cigarette
Papers and Tubes), the American Viticultural Area program (Part 9), and
TTB procedure and administration (Part 70).
In early FY 2008, the bureau plans to put forward for Department of the
Treasury publication notices of proposed rulemaking on parts 19 and 9
and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on part 25. Additional
regulations modernization work will begin later in the year on part 28.
In addition to TTB's modernization updates, in FY 2008 the Bureau will
pursue final regulatory action regarding allergens, serving facts for
alcohol beverage labels and advertisements, and the classification
distinctions between cigars and cigarettes for excise tax purposes.
Bureau of the Public Debt
The Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) administers the following
regulations:
Governing transactions in Government securities by Government
securities brokers and dealers under the Government
Securities Act of 1986 (GSA), as amended.
Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including rules
governing the sale and issue of savings bonds, marketable
Treasury securities, and State and local Government
securities.
Setting out the terms and conditions by which Treasury may
redeem (buy back) outstanding, unmatured marketable
Treasury securities through debt buyback operations.
Governing securities held in Treasury's retail systems.
Governing the acceptability and valuation of all collateral
pledged to secure deposits of public monies and other
financial interests of the Federal Government.
Treasury's GSA rules govern financial responsibility, the protection of
customer funds and securities, record keeping, reporting, audit, and
large position reporting for all government securities brokers and
dealers, including financial institutions.
Treasury maintains regulations governing two retail systems for
purchasing and holding Treasury securities: Legacy Treasury Direct, in
which investors can purchase, manage and hold marketable Treasury
securities in book-entry form, and TreasuryDirect, in which investors
may purchase, manage and hold savings bonds, marketable Treasury
securities, and certificates of indebtedness in an Internet-based
system.
The rules setting out the terms and conditions for the sale and issue
of marketable book-entry Treasury bills, notes, and bonds are known as
the Uniform Offering Circular. Treasury is considering lowering the
minimum purchase amount for all Treasury marketable securities from
$1,000 to $100. If this policy change is approved, during fiscal year
2008, BPD plans to issue rules to lower the par amount and multiple of
Treasury notes, bonds, and TIPS that may be stripped from $1,000 to
$100. The lower purchase amount will enable smaller investors to
participate in Treasury marketable securities auctions and encourage
Americans to save more.
In fiscal year 2008, BPD plans to issue a rule to lower the annual
purchase limitation for Series EE and Series I savings bonds.
Currently, investors can purchase $30,000 each of definitive and book-
entry Series EE savings bonds and $30,000 each of definitive and book-
entry Series I savings bond per person, per calendar year. The new rule
will permit an investor to purchase a principal amount of $5,000 each
of definitive and book-entry Series EE savings bonds and $5,000 each of
definitive and book-entry Series I savings bonds per person, per
calendar year. As a result of the change in the annual purchase
limitation, we are withdrawing the $10,000 Series I definitive savings
bond denomination on original issue. The change will permit Treasury to
continue to offer savings options for investors with limited means,
while encouraging those with greater financial resources to participate
in marketable securities auctions.
BPD intends to issue regulations, in fiscal year 2008, clarifying
matters related to deceased bond owners. In addition, BPD will take the
opportunity to make non-substantive technical corrections to the
regulations.
Financial Management Service
The Financial Management Service (FMS) issues regulations to improve
the quality of Government financial management and to administer its
payments, collections, debt collection, and Government-wide accounting
programs. For fiscal year 2008, FMS's regulatory plan includes the
following priorities:
Management of Federal Agency Disbursements: FMS is amending 31
CFR part 208 to increase the use of agency electronic
payments. In fiscal year 2008, a proposed rule will provide
that electronic payments are required for any individual
who becomes eligible to receive Federal payments, unless
the individual certifies that he or she does not have a
bank account. This amendment to 31 CFR part 208 is in
addition to a final rule, issued by FMS in the summer of
2007, facilitating the delivery of Federal payments to
victims of disasters and emergencies.
Acceptance of Bonds Secured by Government Obligations in Lieu
of Bonds with Securities: FMS will amend 31 CFR part 225 to
incorporate changes required by the Financial Services
Regulatory Relief Act of 2006. The Act makes changes to 31
U.S.C. - 9301 and - 9303 to allow the Secretary of the
Treasury to determine the types of securities that may be
pledged in lieu of surety bonds, and requires that the
securities be valued at current market rates.
Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan
Program: FMS will amend 31 CFR part 203 to support
operational changes resulting from the implementation of
new computer systems and to eliminate provisions that are
obsolete, duplicative, or more appropriately located in the
Treasury Financial Manual.
Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan
Program: FMS may amend 31 CFR part 203 or such other part
to support proposed legislation that, if enacted, would
broaden Treasury's authority to invest the operating cash
of the Treasury in repurchase obligations.
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and Implementation
of the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007
On July 26, 2007, the President signed into law the Foreign Investment
and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA), which becomes effective on
October 24,
[[Page 69919]]
2007. Under the law, the President is to direct, subject to notice and
comment, the issuance of regulations to carry out Section 721 of the
Defense Production Act, which FINSA amended. Since its enactment in
1988, Section 721 has been implemented by the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The Secretary of the Treasury
has served as the chairperson of CFIUS since its creation by Executive
order in 1975 and, under FINSA, will continue as chairperson. We
anticipate that the Department of the Treasury will play an important
role, with other CFIUS agencies, in the issuance of these regulations.
_______________________________________________________________________
TREAS--Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
128. IMPLEMENTATION OF A REVISED BASEL CAPITAL ACCORD (BASEL II)
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
12 USC 93a; 12 USC 3907; 12 USC 3909
CFR Citation:
12 CFR 3
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
As part of OCC's ongoing efforts to develop and refine capital
standards to ensure the safety and soundness of the national banking
system and to implement statutory requirements, OCC is amending various
provisions of the capital rules for national banks. This change
involves the implementation of the new framework for the Basel Capital
Accord (Basel II). OCC is conducting this rulemaking jointly with the
other Federal Banking Agencies. In addition, the Federal Banking
Agencies also have published for comment additional proposed Basel II
Guidance. See 72 FR 9084 (February 28, 2007).
Statement of Need:
This rulemaking is necessary to implement an international initiative
regarding the capital adequacy regulation of certain domestic financial
institutions. Specifically, this rulemaking implements the
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital
Standards'' (Basel II), which comprehensively revises the 1988
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital
Standards'' into the standards and requirements that will govern the
largest banks in the United States.
Summary of Legal Basis:
OCC is implementing the Basel II capital framework for certain domestic
financial institutions. This initiative is based on the OCC's general
rulemaking authority in 12 U.S.C. 93a and its specific authority under
12 U.S.C. 3907 and 3909. 12 U.S.C. 3907(a)(2) specifically authorizes
OCC to establish minimum capital levels for financial institutions that
OCC, in its discretion, deems necessary or appropriate.
Alternatives:
Please see the OCC's regulatory impact analysis, which can be found in
its entirety at http://www.occ.treas.gov/law/basel.htm under the link
of ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for Risk-Based Capital Standards:
Revised Capital Adequacy Guidelines (Basel II), Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, International and Economic Affairs
(2006).''
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Not yet determined.
Risks:
Not yet determined.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 08/04/03 68 FR 45900
NPRM 09/25/06 71 FR 55830
NPRM Comment Period End 01/23/07
NPRM Comment Period
Extended From 01/23/
2007 to 03/26/2007 12/26/06 71 FR 77518
Final Action 12/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Ron Shimabukuro
Senior Counsel
Department of the Treasury
Comptroller of the Currency
Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division
250 E Street SW.
Washington, DC 20219
Phone: 202 874-5090
Fax: 202 874-4889
Email: ron.shimabukuro@occ.treas.gov
Related RIN: Split from 1557-AB14
RIN: 1557-AC91
_______________________________________________________________________
TREAS--Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
129. IMPLEMENTATION OF A REVISED BASEL CAPITAL ACCORD (BASEL II)
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
12 USC 1462; 12 USC 1462a; 12 USC 1463; 12 USC 1464; 12 USC 1467a; 12
USC 1828 (note)
CFR Citation:
12 CFR 567
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In 2003, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision (collectively, the
``Federal Banking Agencies'') sought industry comment on a proposed
framework for implementing the New Basel Capital Accord in the United
States. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) described
significant elements of the Advanced Internal Ratings-Based approach
for credit risk and the Advanced Measurement Approaches for operational
risk (together, the advanced approaches).
In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Federal Banking Agencies began a
quantitative impact study to help determine the potential impact of
implementing the capital framework set forth in the ``International
Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital
[[Page 69920]]
Standards: A Revised Framework,'' which updates and makes some
significant revisions to the preliminary New Basel Capital Accord
document from 2003, upon which the above ANPRM was based.
After review of the results of the quantitative impact study and after
further review and full consideration of public comments received on
the ANPRM, the Federal Banking Agencies published a notice of proposed
rulemaking for implementation of this capital framework. The NPRM
specified criteria that would be used to determine banking
organizations that would be required to use the advanced approaches,
subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria, supervisory standards,
and disclosure requirements. Other banking organizations that would
meet the criteria, standards, and requirements also would be eligible
to use the advanced approaches. Under the advanced approaches, banking
organizations would use internal estimates of certain risk components
as key inputs in the determination of their regulatory capital
requirements.
Statement of Need:
This rulemaking is necessary to implement an international initiative
regarding the capital adequacy regulation of certain domestic financial
institutions. Specifically, this rulemaking implements the
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital
Standards'' (Basel II), which comprehensively revised the 1988
``International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital
Standards'' into the standards and requirements that will govern the
largest savings associations in the United States.
Summary of Legal Basis:
OTS is implementing the Basel II capital framework for certain domestic
financial institutions. This initiative is based on the OTS' general
rulemaking authority under the Home Owners' Loan Act, and its authority
under 12 USC 1464(t). 12 USC 1464(t)(1) specifically authorizes OTS to
establish minimum capital levels for savings associations, including
risk-based capital standards.
Alternatives:
Not yet determined.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
See Economic Data.
Risks:
Not yet determined.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 08/04/03 68 FR 45900
ANPRM Comment Period End 11/03/03
NPRM 09/25/06 71 FR 55830
NPRM Comment Period End 01/23/07
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 12/26/06 71 FR 77518
NPRM Comment Period End 03/26/07
Final Rule 12/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Michael D. Solomon
Director, Capital Policy
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-5654
Karen Osterloh
Special Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-6639
David Riley
Senior Analyst, Capital Policy
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20552
Phone: 202 906-6669
Related RIN: Related to 1550-AB11
RIN: 1550-AB56
BILLING CODE 4811-42-S
[[Page 69921]]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit programs
that recognize the important public obligations to those who served
this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely confined
to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress relating to
programs for veterans and their beneficiaries. VA's major regulatory
objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, and
efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three VA
components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health
Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The primary
mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide high-
quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and their
beneficiaries. The primary mission of the Veterans Health
Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis
to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing
homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The
primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury
eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their
dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries
as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful
Nation to honor the memory and service of those who served in the Armed
Forces.
VA's regulatory priorities include a special project to undertake a
comprehensive review and improvement of its existing regulations. The
first portion of this project is devoted to reviewing, reorganizing,
and rewriting the VA's compensation and pension regulations found in 38
CFR Part 3. The goal of the Regulation Rewrite Project is to improve
the clarity and logical consistency of these regulations in order to
better inform veterans and their family members of their entitlements.
BILLING CODE 8320-01-S
[[Page 69922]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Statement of Priorities
OVERVIEW
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary
Federal agency responsible for safeguarding the quality of the natural
environment and protecting human health from deleterious pollutants.
Since 1970, EPA, together with its partners and stakeholders, has been
delivering a cleaner, healthier environment to the public. EPA's
achievements, from regulating auto emissions to banning the use of DDT,
from cleaning up toxic waste to protecting the ozone layer, and from
increasing recycling to revitalizing inner-city brownfields, have
resulted in cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land.
The Agency uses three guiding principles to govern its work to maintain
the strongest level of environmental protection:
Results and Accountability. EPA is committed to being a good
steward of our environment and a good steward of America's
tax dollars. To provide the public with the environmental
results it expects and deserves, we must operate as
efficiently and effectively as possible. Accountability for
results is a key component of the President's Management
Agenda, designed to make government citizen-centered,
results-oriented, and market-based.
Innovation and Collaboration. Our progress depends both on our
ability and continued commitment to identify and use
innovative tools, approaches, and solutions to address
environmental problems and to engage extensively with our
partners, stakeholders, and the public. Under each of our
goals, we are working to promote a sense of environmental
stewardship and a shared responsibility for addressing
today's challenges.
Best Available Science. EPA needs the best scientific
information available to anticipate potential environmental
threats, evaluate risks, identify solutions, and develop
protective standards. Sound science helps us ask the right
questions, assess information, and characterize problems
clearly to inform Agency decision makers.
EPA applies these principles as it works with its Federal, State,
tribal, and local government partners to advance the mission of
protecting human health and the environment. As a result of these
collaborations, tremendous progress has been made in protecting and
restoring the Nation's air, water, and land:
EPA is advancing clean, renewable fuels and clean air through
a renewable fuel standard which encourages the use of
renewable fuels produced from American crops.
By the end of FY 2006, more than 2,500 polluted waters
identified by states in 2000 were restored or found to be
meeting water quality standards.
EPA continues to commit to Brownfields redevelopment via
strong public-private partnerships and innovative and
creative solutions. By encouraging cleanup and
redevelopment of America's abandoned and contaminated waste
sites, the Brownfields Program has leveraged more than $8.2
billion in private investment, more than 37,500 jobs, and
more than 8,300 properties assessed for potential
redevelopment.
EPA has a leading role in homeland security by supporting the
protection of critical water infrastructure and
coordinating development of national capabilities and
strategies to address chemical, biological, and
radiological contamination from a terrorist event. In FY
2006, EPA received emergency response plans for 100 percent
of all large and medium community drinking water systems
that conducted vulnerability assessments; launched a pilot
water contamination warning system; developed short-term
exposure limits and established health effects guidelines
for exposure to hazardous chemicals or a terrorist
incident; and updated the National Response Plan in light
of lessons learned from hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
EPA continues to accelerate its pace of environmental protection while
maintaining the Nation's economic competitiveness. To that end, the
Agency has a number of regulatory goals in order to meet the challenge
while demonstrating progress consistent with its principles of results
and accountability, innovation and collaboration, and the use of the
best available science. Using these three principles as the foundation
of its activity, EPA is sharpening focus on achieving measurable
environmental results on the following five strategic goals:
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
While EPA has made tremendous progress toward achieving clean, healthy
air that is safe to breathe, air pollution continues to be a great
problem. The average adult breathes more than 3000 gallons of air every
day, and children breathe more air per pound of body weight. Air
pollutants, such as those that form urban smog can remain in the
environment for long periods of time and can be carried by the wind
hundreds of miles from their origin. Millions of people live in areas
where urban smog, very small particles, and toxic pollutants may pose
serious health concerns.
EPA's programs will allow the Nation to make substantial progress in
protecting human health and ecosystems from air pollution. By 2011,
virtually all of the country will have put in place controls to meet
current air quality standards. New motor vehicles, including trucks and
buses, will be 75 to 95 percent cleaner than they were in 2003. Power
plant emissions will be reduced by approximately 40 percent from 2003
levels. Taken together, these programs, when fully implemented, may
prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths and hospitalizations, and
may prevent millions of lost work and school days each year. These
national programs will be supplemented by local control strategies
designed to ensure that the air quality standards are achieved and
maintained.
EPA also works to address climate change. Since the beginning of the
industrial revolution, concentrations of several greenhouse gases
(particularly carbon dioxide) have increased substantially. EPA is
currently working with other Federal Agencies to implement the
President's 20 in 10 program, to reduce gasoline consumption up to 20
percent in the next ten years.
Clean and Safe Water
EPA's ``Clean and Safe Water'' goal defines the improvements that EPA
expects to see in the quality of the Nation's drinking water and of
surface waters over the next 5 years. These goals include improving
compliance with drinking water standards, maintaining safe water
quality at public beaches, restoring more than 2,000 polluted
waterbodies, and improving the health of coastal waters.
In an effort to address the Nation's aging water infrastructure system,
EPA is developing and implementing more innovative, market-based
infrastructure financing tools for States, tribes, and
[[Page 69923]]
communities. These initiatives will increase and accelerate investment
in water infrastructure and offer greater flexibility and cost-
effectiveness to provide clean and safe water for every American.
Through technology, innovation, and collaboration, EPA makes better use
of its resources to help the nation's water and wastewater systems be
highly efficient and to move infrastructure toward greater
sustainability for many years to come.
Land Preservation and Restoration
EPA's land preservation and restoration goal represents the need for
managing waste, conserving and recovering the value of wastes,
preventing releases, responding to emergencies, and cleaning up
contaminated land. Uncontrolled wastes can cause acute illness or
chronic disease and can threaten healthy ecosystems.
Over the next 5 years, EPA will establish or update approved controls
to prevent dangerous releases at approximately 500 hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and also will address 2
long-standing tribal waste management concerns: increasing the number
of tribes covered by integrated waste management plans and cleaning up
open dumps.
To reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional
releases of harmful substances, EPA plans to maintain a high level of
readiness to respond to emergencies, lead or oversee the response at
more than 1,600 hazardous waste removals and reduce by 25 percent the
number of gallons of oil spilled by facilities subject to Facility
Response Plan regulations relative to previous levels. EPA and its
partners, and responsible parties will remediate contaminated land,
reduce risk to the public, and enable communities to return properties
to beneficial reuse. We will also apply leading-edge scientific
research to improve our capability to assess conditions and determine
relative risks posed by contamination at hazardous waste sites.
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
With a mix of regulatory programs and partnership approaches the
Agency achieves results in ways that are efficient, innovative and
sustainable. EPA continues to work collaboratively with other nations
and international organizations to identify, develop, and implement
policy options to address global environmental issues of mutual
concern. Following this, EPA strives to build a community's capability
to make decisions that affect the environment.
EPA's efforts to share information and provide assistance offers the
tools needed to effectively address the myriad aspects of planned
development or redevelopment. These contributions are tailored to
circumstances spanning the issues of sensitive communities and
international cooperation. In a similar manner, EPA's ecosystem
protection programs encompass a wide range of approaches that address
specific at-risk regional areas, such as large waterbodies. EPA also
works with partners to protect larger categories of threatened systems,
such as estuaries and wetlands. In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, EPA will assure ``no net loss'' of wetlands.
Science guides EPA's identification and treatment of emerging issues
and advances our understanding of long-standing human health and
environmental challenges. EPA's research is typically crosscutting,
multidisciplinary, and at the cutting edge of environmental science;
reflects the dynamic nature of science; and brings scientific rigor to
the characterization of uncertainty and risk.
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
EPA ensures that government, business, and the public comply with
Federal laws and regulations by monitoring compliance and taking
enforcement actions that result in reduced pollution and improved
environmental management practices. To accelerate the Nation's
environmental protection efforts, EPA works to prevent pollution at the
source, to advance other forms of environmental stewardship, and to
employ the tools of innovation and collaboration.
Effective compliance assistance and strong, consistent enforcement are
critical to achieving the human health and environmental benefits
expected from the country's environmental laws. EPA monitors compliance
patterns and trends and focuses on priority problem areas identified in
consultation with States, tribes, and other partners. The Agency
supports the regulated community by assisting regulated entities in
understanding environmental requirements, helping them identify cost-
effective compliance options and strategies, providing incentives for
compliance.
EPA promotes the principles of responsible environmental stewardship,
sustainability, and accountability to achieve its strategic goals.
Collaborating closely with other Federal agencies, States, and tribes,
the Agency identifies and promotes innovations that assist businesses
and communities in improving their environmental performance. EPA works
to improve and encourage pollution prevention and sustainable
practices, helping businesses and communities move beyond compliance
and become partners in protecting our national resources and improving
the environment and our citizens' health.
Timeliness of Regulatory Actions
Completing actions on time or ahead of schedule means EPA keeps its
commitments, improves the quality of decisions, and the public and
environment benefit from EPA's key actions sooner. EPA is focusing
management attention on several dozen key actions and tracking their
adherence to an agreed-to schedule for the completion of a standard set
of development milestones leading to promulgation of rules or
finalization of other types of actions. Actions that are completed on
time or early are used by EPA as potential exemplars of best practices;
program offices that achieve timely completion of actions are
encouraged to share their success stories and lessons learned. Actions
that are off-track are identified early and corrective steps are taken
to expedite their completion.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
Per the amendments to EO 12866, we are providing a combined aggregate
estimate of costs and benefits of regulations included in the
Regulatory Plan. 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
type of regulatory costs and benefits considered. The aggregate
estimates presented combine annualized and annual numbers. Cost savings
are treated as benefits. Dollars were converted to 2001 using the GDP
deflator. The ranges presented below do not reflect the full range of
uncertainty in the benefit and cost estimates for these rules.
It is critical to note that the aggregate estimates omit important
benefits and costs that cannot be monetized. For example, the estimates
leave out many health and welfare benefits, such as ecosystem
functions, visibility, avoided cases of chronic respiratory damage,
hypertension, and coronary heart disease, among many others. In
[[Page 69924]]
addition, for many of the rules in the Plan, we were unable to estimate
costs and benefits at this time because the range of policy options
under consideration is wide and varied.
The monetized aggregate estimates provided below reflect the following
rules in the Regulatory Plan: (1) Monetized cost and benefit
information was provided for: Review of NAAQS for Ozone, Control of
Emissions from New Locomotives and New Marine Diesel Engines, Control
of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Expanding the
Comparable Fuels Exclusion under RCRA, Lead-Based Paint Activities;
Amendments for Renovation, Repair and Remodeling; (2) Monetized cost
information (but no monetized benefits) was provided for: Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program; Implementing the Screening and Testing
Phase, Test Rule; Certain High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals,
Pesticides: Data Requirements for Antimicrobials, and Final Revisions
to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for CAFOS; (3)
Monetized benefit information (but no monetized costs) was provided
for: Definition of Solid Waste Revisions, Revisions to the SPCC Final
Rule, Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary Materials from the
Petroleum Refining Industry Processed in a Gasification System to
Produce Synthesis Gas, Hazardous Waste Management System.
Aggregate annual monetized benefits range from $5 billion to $104
billion (benefit estimates reflect the full suite of standards under
consideration for the ozone NAAQS). With the exception of the ozone
NAAQS rule, we do not have sufficient information to provide a range
for the aggregate cost estimates. For this reason, we are reporting the
ozone cost range separate from the other rules. The annualized
monetized costs for the ozone NAAQS rule range from $3.5 billion to $70
billion (cost estimates reflect the full suite of standards under
consideration for the ozone NAAQS.) Aggregate annual monetized costs
for all other rules are estimated to be $1 billion. This estimate does
not reflect the uncertainty in the cost estimates, as noted above.
Rules Expected to Affect Small Entities
By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to improve
its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens to
small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses'
participation in its voluntary programs. A number of rules included in
this Plan might be of particular interest to small businesses including
Control of Emissions from Spark-Ignition Engines and Fuel
Systems from Marine Vessels and Small Equipment (2060-
AM34), and
Lead-Based Paint Activities; Amendments for Renovation, Repair
and Painting (2070-AC83).
For a more extensive list of rules affecting small businesses, please
see appendices B and C to the Regulatory Agenda which is available at
http://www.epa.gov/opei/orpm.html#agenda.
EPA's Regulatory Plan is an important element of the Agency's strategy
for achieving environmental results within the framework described
above. The Agency's regulatory program includes several efforts that
will reduce the burden placed on small businesses while ensuring the
integrity of the environment. Many of these have been nominated for
Agency action through the public nomination process initiated by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001, 2002, and 2004 and many
of these have been completed. Taken as a whole, the Agency's Regulatory
Plan will ensure that the Nation continues to achieve improvements in
environmental quality while minimizing burden to States and the
regulated community.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EPA'S REGULATORY PLAN
Office of Air and Radiation
In 2007, a top priority for EPA is the implementation of a recent
Presidential Executive Order to reduce gasoline consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and other types of
engines. To this end, the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is working
with other Federal agencies to develop the rules needed to carry out
this Executive Order. These regulations are intended to give effect to
the President's State-of-the-Union proposal to reduce gasoline
consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years by increasing the
supply of alternative fuels and making motor vehicles more energy
efficient. Another important and ongoing OAR regulatory priority is to
protect public health and the environment from the harmful effects of
fine particulate matter and ozone, the two air pollutants that persist
widely in the Nation's air in amounts that exceed Clean Air Act health
standards. Exposure to these pollutants is associated with numerous
harmful effects on human health, including respiratory problems, heart
and lung disease, and premature death. These pollutants also degrade
visibility, an effect of particular concern in national parks and other
scenic areas. In addition to ozone and particulate pollution, OAR is
continuing to address toxic air pollution by controlling toxic
emissions from both stationary sources and mobile sources such as cars
and trucks. OAR is also working to increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of its permitting and monitoring programs, which are among
the main mechanisms through which clean-air protections are
implemented. Finally, OAR is revising previously issued safety
standards for nuclear-waste storage in response to a court decision.
These efforts are described briefly below.
On May 14, 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order entitled
``Cooperation Among Agencies in Protecting the Environment with Respect
to Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Motor Vehicles, Nonroad Vehicles, and
Nonroad Engines.'' OAR is working with other Federal agencies to
implement this Executive Order by developing regulations to reduce
gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
These regulations will use as a starting point the President's State-
of-the-Union proposal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over
the next 10 years. By increasing the supply of alternative fuels and
making motor vehicles more energy efficient, this effort will serve to
establish rules giving effect to the President's proposal.
To help control ozone and particulate pollution, OAR is developing
additional rules as part of its program to reduce emissions from mobile
sources. These rules will require additional emission reductions from
certain marine engines, locomotives, and small equipment. These rules
will enhance the overall mobile-source control program that has already
set stringent standards for most categories of vehicles, engines, and
their fuels.
OAR also continues to assess new scientific information that underlies
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In July, EPA
proposed a rule revising the existing NAAQS for ozone, and will
promulgate a final rule early in 2008. A rulemaking addressing
standards for lead is also underway, with an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking due for publication in December.
EPA continues to address toxic air pollution under authority of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The
[[Page 69925]]
largest part of this effort is the ``Maximum Achievable Control
Technology'' (MACT) program, which is now well into its second phase
consisting of evaluation of the effectiveness of work done so far,
assessment of the need for additional controls, and assessment of
advances in control technology. In this second phase, EPA will combine
the remaining MACT source categories requiring residual risk and
technology reviews into several groups to help meet statutory dates,
raise and resolve programmatic issues more effectively, minimize
resources by using available data and focusing on high risk sources,
and provide consistent review and analysis. Among the rulemakings
currently underway is the Risk and Technology Review Phase II, Group 2,
which addresses 21 source categories including aerospace manufacturing,
oil and natural-gas production, and production of polymers and resins.
Since many air quality programs are administered through permitting and
monitoring programs, OAR continues to work toward improving these
programs to increase efficiency and reduce regulatory burden.
Currently, OAR is continuing to develop rulemakings to streamline and
improve its New Source Review (NSR) permitting program. This effort
will clarify the circumstances under which companies must obtain
construction permits before building new facilities or significantly
modifying existing facilities. These revisions will provide more
regulatory certainty by clarifying compliance requirements, and will
also make the program easier to administer while maintaining its
environmental benefits. In developing these NSR rule revisions, OAR is
drawing upon many years of intense involvement with major stakeholders,
who have helped shape a suite of reforms that are expected to both
improve the environmental effectiveness of these programs and make them
easier to comply with. OAR is also developing rulemakings to clarify
and better define the kinds of monitoring required in Federal and State
operating permit programs, and to clarify how to determine the
potential emissions from various types of sources.
EPA also expects to complete a rulemaking amending the radiation
standards governing the development of the Yucca Mountain site in
Nevada, the Nation's designated geologic repository for spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste. These standards were initially
issued in 2001 and were partially remanded by a Federal court in 2004.
To address the remand, EPA must reassess the time frame for compliance
in light of the National Academy's recommendation that compliance must
be addressed at the time of peak dose, which may be as long as several
hundred thousand years into the future.
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
The primary goal of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) is to prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial
chemical risks to humans, communities and ecosystems. OPPTS employs a
mix of regulatory and non-regulatory methods to achieve this goal.
During the past fiscal year, OPPTS proposed and finalized a number of
significant regulatory actions that are briefly highlighted below. For
more information about these regulatory actions, as well as information
about our other programs and activities, please visit our Web site at
www.epa.gov/oppts. Looking forward to the coming fiscal year, OPPTS
expects to issue several significant regulatory actions that are also
highlighted below.
In working to meet OPPTS's goal, EPA thoroughly evaluates pesticides to
ensure that they will meet Federal safety standards to protect human
health and the environment before they can be marketed and used in the
United States. EPA uses data submitted by pesticide producers to form
the bases for the pesticide risk assessments and decisions as to
whether pesticides meet safety standards. The Agency has kept pace with
the evolving scientific understanding of pesticide risks by requiring
the submission of the data needed on a case-by-case basis and OPPTS
updated its registration data requirements for conventional,
biochemical, and microbial pesticides in 2007. As part of this
continuing effort to update and/or establish pesticide data
requirements, OPPTS expects to issue two proposed rules in 2008: One
would update the data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides in 40
CFR Part 158; the other would establish data requirements for plant-
incorporated protectant (PIP) pesticides in 40 CFR Part 174.
In order to better protect human health and the environment, and to
update and strengthen the pesticide worker safety programs, OPPTS
expects to propose changes to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for
certifying the competency of pesticide applicators to apply pesticides
safely in late 2008. Many changes in State programs have occurred since
the initial applicator certification regulations were promulgated in
the 1970s. Today, many States' programs go beyond the current Federal
regulations in training and certifying pesticide applicators. The
Agency anticipates revisions that will broaden the scope of the
certification program for occupational pesticide applicators, and
strengthen the demonstration of competency as a requirement of
certification. In conjunction with the applicator certification
regulation enhancements, OPPTS will also propose enhancements to the
agricultural worker protection regulation in a separate but related
regulatory action to strengthen the elements of hazard communication
and pesticide worker safety training.
Evidence suggests that environmental exposure to man-made chemicals
that mimic hormones (endocrine disruptors) might cause adverse health
effects in human and wildlife populations. The Food Quality Protection
Act directed EPA to develop a chemical screening program (the Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program, EDSP), using appropriate validated test
systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine
whether certain substances may have hormonal effects in humans. OPPTS
is implementing recommendations from a scientific advisory committee,
which was established to advise EPA on the EDSP, by developing and
validating test systems for determining whether a chemical might have
effects similar to those produced by naturally occurring hormones. As
part of this program EPA is also developing a draft framework for
procedures and processes to use when implementing the screening and
testing phase of the EDSP, and developed an initial list of chemicals
for which testing will be required. In 2008, EPA anticipates finalizing
the procedures and the list of chemicals for initial screening. The
screening and testing phase of the program is expected to commence in
2008.
In 2008, EPA will continue its work towards the Administration goal of
eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a national health concern by
2010 by implementing a program to address lead-based paint hazards
associated with renovation, repair and painting activities. The p
rogram will be composed of a combination of approaches including
regulations, and education and outreach that will include elements
specifically designed for industry and consumers. Industry outreach
will include dissemination of
[[Page 69926]]
information regarding the regulation, lead-safe work practices, and
training opportunities. Consumer outreach will be designed to expand
consumer awareness, and create demand for the use of lead-safe work
practices. EPA plans to finalize and begin implementation of the
Renovation, Repair and Painting Program rule in 2008. The regulation is
intended to minimize the introduction of lead hazards resulting from
the disturbance of lead-based paint during renovation, repair, and
painting activities. The regulation would require contractors
conducting renovation, repair and painting activities in most target
housing and child occupied facilities to be trained, certified, and to
follow work practice standards designed to minimize the creation of
lead hazards.
EPA continues to implement the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, a
collaborative partnership between EPA and industry stakeholders, to
develop health and safety screening information on sponsored high
production volume chemicals. To complement this voluntary effort, OPPTS
expects to propose a second test rule under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) in early 2008. This rule will require testing for a
number of HPV chemicals that were not sponsored as part of the
voluntary HPV Challenge Program in order to develop critical
information about the environmental fate and potential hazards of those
chemicals. When combined with exposure and use information obtained
under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR), the Agency will be in a position
to evaluate potential health and environmental risks, and take
appropriate actions, as necessary. In 2007 and continuing in 2008, EPA
will begin to evaluate the HPV data and develop hazard screening/risk
characterizations on the HPV chemicals. These Hazard/Risk
Characterizations will be posted to the High Production Volume
Information System (HPVIS) website as they are completed. EPA will also
begin to assess lower-volume existing chemicals. These activities will
help us identify needed next steps, including regulatory and voluntary
measures, to obtain more detailed toxicity or exposure information,
identify safer substitutes, or identify other risk mitigation steps, if
necessary. Because of the head start provided by the HPV Challenge
information and Inventory Update Rule reporting, this approach will
result in risk management and testing decisions on HPV chemicals in the
next several years. Additionally, EPA is committed to considering any
relevant data generated by other countries or regions (e.g., Canada's
Chemical Management Plan or the EU's REACH legislation) which would
further inform our regulatory decisions.
In July of 2007, EPA issued for public comment draft documents
regarding the design of a voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship
Program (NMSP) under TSCA. The NMSP will complement and support EPA's
new and existing chemical programs under TSCA and will help provide a
firmer scientific foundation for regulatory decisions by encouraging
the development of key scientific information and contribute to an
improved understanding of risk management practices for nanoscale
chemical substances (nanoscale materials). EPA held a public meeting on
the NMSP on August 2007, and in September 2007, the Agency held a
public scientific peer consultation on material characterization of
nanoscale materials as well as a conference on the pollution prevention
benefits of nanotechnology. If information from the NMSP or other
information indicates potential new uses of existing chemicals that may
result in new exposures or to fill information gaps, EPA may issue a
significant new use rule or section 8 reporting rule under TSCA.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) contributes to
the Agency's overall mission of protecting public health and the
environment by focusing on the safe management of wastes; preparing
for, preventing and responding to chemical and oil spills, accidents,
and emergencies; enhancing homeland security; and cleaning up
contaminated property and making it available for reuse. EPA carries
out our mission in partnership with other Federal agencies, States,
tribes, local governments, communities, nongovernmental organizations,
and the private sector. To further our mission, OSWER has identified
several regulatory priorities for the upcoming fiscal year that will
promote stewardship and resource conservation and focus regulatory
efforts on risk reduction and statutory compliance.
EPA is seeking to further amend the Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan requirements to reduce the burden imposed on
the regulated community for complying with these SPCC requirements,
while maintaining protection of human health and the environment.
Specifically, on October 1, 2007, EPA proposed amendments to the Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule at 40 CFR part 112.
With these proposed changes, EPA intends to provide clarity, tailor,
and streamline requirements as appropriate in order to encourage
greater compliance with the SPCC regulations. These amendments are
intended to exempt certain containers from the SPCC requirements;
clarify the general secondary containment requirements; provide
streamlined requirements for a subset qualified facilities; increase
flexibility in the security requirements and flexibility in the use of
industry standards to comply with integrity testing requirements;
provide additional flexibility in meeting the facility diagram
requirements; clarify the flexibility provided by the definition of
``facility;'' and streamline a number of requirements for oil
production facilities.
The ``definition of solid waste'' rule determines which hazardous
secondary materials that are recycled are regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste
regulations and which are not. Many hazardous secondary materials that
are or could be reclaimed as part of the recycling process are
regulated as hazardous wastes. This can discourage recycling of the
wastes, due to requirements for permits (which trigger corrective
action), manifests, and the other requirements imposed by the Subtitle
C hazardous waste regulations. EPA is seeking innovative approaches
that will increase the safe recycling of hazardous waste, while still
ensuring that these materials are properly handled. In its supplemental
proposal, EPA is proposing to remove unnecessary regulatory controls
over certain recycling practices; EPA expects to make it easier to
safely recycle hazardous secondary material. Exclusions are proposed
for materials that are generated and reclaimed under the control of the
generator; materials that are generated and transferred to another
person or company for reclamation under specific conditions; and
materials that EPA deems nonwaste through a case-by-case petition
process. If the exclusions are promulgated as proposed and are adopted
by all the states, EPA expects this action to result in $107 million in
average annual cost savings.
EPA is considering revising the RCRA hazardous regulations to exclude
from
[[Page 69927]]
being a solid waste any oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials that
are generated by the petroleum refining industry if such materials are
destined to be processed in a gasification system at the petroleum
refinery and used in the manufacture of synthesis gas. This rule
promotes increased energy efficiency, by allowing oil-bearing hazardous
secondary materials to be used as a source of energy, while reducing
the volume of hazardous waste that would otherwise be treated and land
disposed. With an estimated savings between $46.4 million and $48.7
million in net social benefits per year, the final rule takes a
significant step forward for the environment and for energy self-
sufficiency.
The comparable fuels program currently allows specific industrial
wastes to be excluded from RCRA hazardous waste requirements when they
are used as a fuel and do not contain hazardous constituent levels
exceeding those in a typical benchmark fuel that facilities could
otherwise use as a fuel. EPA is considering promulgating a rule that
would expand those hazardous wastes that could be used safely for their
energy value without the expense of a RCRA permit, to promote the use
of these wastes as a renewable domestic source of energy and reduce our
use of fossil fuels. This rule will promote safe energy recovery and
remove unnecessary costs.
The Agency plans to propose revisions to the treatment standards for
the disposal of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts. EPA is
focusing on removing disincentives to the recycling of spent
hydrotreating and hydrorefining catalysts, which would create more
incentives to metals recovery, over disposal.
The Office of Management and Budget's Reports to Congress on the Costs
and Benefits of Regulations for 2001, 2002 and 2004 included reform
nominations for the Agency to consider. The following rulemakings
mentioned above support reform nominations: (1) Expanding the
Comparable Fuels Exclusion under RCRA, (2) Definition of Solid Waste
Revisions, (3) Revisions to Recycling Requirements for Spent
Hydrorefining and Hydroprocessing Catalysts, and (4) Revisions to the
SPCC. In addition, two additional rulemakings under development also
pertain to the reform nominations: (1) Streamlining Laboratory Waste
Management in Academic and Research Laboratories and (2) Management of
Cement Kiln Dust (a by-product of the cement manufacturing process.)
For the former rule, the Agency proposed a set of alternative standards
that are more tailored to the way laboratories operate. For the latter
rule, the Agency proposed a comprehensive set of standards for the
management of cement kiln dust.
Office of Water
EPA's Office of Water's primary goals are to ensure that drinking water
is safe; restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic
ecosystems to protect human health; support economic and recreational
activities; and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.
In order to meet these goals, EPA has established a number of
regulatory priorities for the coming year. They include actions
affecting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
requirements and drinking water.
EPA is planning to publish four actions affecting National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements in FY
2007. The first is a rule addressing the NPDES permitting requirements
and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in response to the order
issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance
et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005). The final rule responds to
the court order while furthering the statutory goal of restoring and
maintaining the Nation's water quality and effectively ensuring that
CAFOs properly manage manure generated by their operations. A second
action is the Water Transfers rulemaking. EPA plans to finalize the
rule that addresses the question of whether the NPDES permitting
program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is applicable to
water control facilities that merely convey or connect navigable
waters. A third action that EPA plans to issue is a policy regarding
NPDES permit requirements for peak wet weather diversions at publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) treatment plants serving separate sanitary
sewer collection systems. Lastly, EPA began development of NPDES
permitting framework under the CWA for the discharge of pollutants
incidental to the normal operation of vessels (e.g., bilgewater, deck
runoff, graywater). Development of NPDES permits is necessary in light
of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court
of California in which the Court ruled that EPA's regulation excluding
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES
permitting exceeded the Agency's authority under the CWA.
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
130. REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR LEAD
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 50
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Judicial, May 1, 2008, As per 5/14/2005 order.
Final, Judicial, September 1, 2008, As per 5/14/2005 order.
Abstract:
On October 5, 1978 the EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for
lead under section 109 of the Act (43 FR 46258). Both primary and
secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 [micro]g/m3 as a
quarterly average (maximum arithmetic mean averaged over a calendar
quarter). Subsequent to this initial standard-setting, the Clean Air
Act requires that the standard be reviewed periodically. The last such
review occurred during the period 1986-1990. For that review, an Air
Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) was completed in 1986 with a
supplement in 1990. Based on information contained in the AQCD, an EPA
Staff Paper and Exposure Assessment were prepared. Following the
completion of these documents, the agency did not propose any revisions
to the 1978 Pb NAAQS. The current review of the Pb air-quality criteria
was initiated in November 2004 by EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) with a general call for information
published in the Federal Register. In January 2005, NCEA released a
work plan for the review and revision of the Pb AQCD. Workshops were
held to provide author feedback on a developing draft of the AQCD in
August 2005. The draft AQCD was released December 1, 2005. The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards prepared a draft Staff
Paper for the Administrator, which included
[[Page 69928]]
an initial evaluation of the key studies and scientific information
contained in the AQCD and additional preliminary technical analyses.
The AQCD and draft Staff Paper were reviewed by the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public. An ANPRM will be
published outlining the results of the final risk assessment and giving
consideration to the policy assessment. As the lead NAAQS review is
completed, the Administrator's proposal to reaffirm or revise the lead
NAAQS will be published with a request for public comment. Input
received during the public comment period will be considered in the
Administrator's final decision.
Statement of Need:
As established in the Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality
standards for lead are to be reviewed every five years.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7409) directs the
Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' and ``secondary''
national ambient air quality standards for pollutants identified under
Section 108 (the ``criteria'' pollutants). The ``primary'' standards
are established for the protection of public health, while the
``secondary'' standards are to protect against public welfare or
ecosystem effects.
Alternatives:
The main alternatives for the Administrator's decision on the review of
the national ambient air quality standards for lead are whether to
reaffirm or revise the existing standards.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Cost and benefit estimates are being developed with the proposal.
Risks:
The current national ambient air quality standards for lead are
intended to protect against public health risks. During the course of
this review, a risk assessment will be conducted to evaluate health
risks associated with the retention or revision of the lead standards.
Welfare effects will also be reviewed in relation to retention or
revision of the current standard.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 12/00/07
NPRM 04/00/08
Final Action 09/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5059;
Agency Contact:
Ginger Tennant
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4072
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: tennant.ginger@epa.gov
Karen Martin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-06
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5274
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: martin.karen@epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN83
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
131. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM (EDSP); IMPLEMENTING THE
SCREENING AND TESTING PHASE
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
15 USC 2603 ``TSCA''; 21 USC 346(a) ``FFDCA''; 42 USC 300(a)(17)
``SDWA''; 7 USC 136 ``FIFRA''
CFR Citation:
None
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Section 408(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended
by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, directs EPA to establish and
implement a program whereby industry will be required to screen and
test all pesticide chemicals to determine whether certain substances
may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a
naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as the
Administrator may designate. The requirements of Section 408(p) were
implemented through the creation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program (EDSP) in 1998. The EDSP has the following three components
that are proceeding simultaneously: 1) developing and validating
assays; 2) setting chemical testing priorities; and 3) establishing
408(p) testing orders and related data procedures. A Federal Advisory
Committee Act committee has provided advice to the EDSP on assay
development and validation. For chemical testing priorities, the
approach to selecting the first 50-100 chemicals was finalized in
September 2005 (70 FR 56449) and EPA implemented that approach. EPA
published a draft list of 73 pesticide active ingredients and high
production volume (HPV) pesticide inert chemicals for initial screening
in June 2007 (72 FR 33486). EPA intends to commence Tier 1 screening of
the first group of pesticide chemicals by issuing test orders under
FFDCA section 408(p) to chemical companies identified as the
manufacturer or processor of the identified chemicals, including the
pesticide registrant. EPA is developing a draft implementation policy
that will describe the procedures that EPA will use to issue orders,
the procedures that order recipients would use to respond to the order,
how data protection and compensation will be addressed in the test
orders, and other related procedures or policies.
Statement of Need:
The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Implementation of the
Screening and Testing Phase fulfills the statutory direction and
authority to screen pesticide chemicals and drinking water contaminants
for their potential to disrupt the endocrine system and adversely
affect human health and wildlife.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The screening and testing phase of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program (EDSP) potentially will encompass a broad range of types of
chemicals, including pesticide chemicals, TSCA chemicals, chemicals
that may be found in sources of drinking water, chemicals that may have
an effect that is cumulative to the effect of a pesticide chemical,
chemicals that are both pesticide chemicals and TSCA chemicals, and
other chemicals that are combinations of these types of chemicals. As
discussed in the Proposed Statement of Policy, EPA has a number of
authorities at its disposal
[[Page 69929]]
to require testing of these types of chemicals. The Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) section 408(p) provides EPA authority to
require testing of all pesticide chemicals and any other substance that
may have an effect that is cumulative to an effect of a pesticide
chemical if EPA determines that a substantial population may be exposed
to the substance. 21 U.S.C. 346a)(p). Likewise, the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) provides EPA with authority to require testing of any
substance that may be found in sources of drinking water if EPA
determines that a substantial population may be exposed to the
substance. 42 USC sec 300j-17. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides EPA with authority to require testing
of pesticides if EPA determines that additional data are required to
maintain in effect an existing registration. 7 USC sec 136a(c)(2)(B).
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides authority for EPA to
require testing of TSCA chemicals, provided that it makes certain
hazard and/or exposure findings. 15 USC sec 2603. In addition, EPA has
authority to issue consent orders to require testing when interested
parties agree on an acceptable testing program. 51 FR 23706 (June 30,
1986).
Alternatives:
A federal role is mandated under cited authority. There is no
alternative to the role of the Federal government on this issue to
ensure that pesticides, commercial chemicals and contaminants are
screened and tested for endocrine disruption potential. A limited
amount of testing may be conducted voluntarily but this will fall far
short of the systematic screening which is necessary to protect public
health and the environment and ensure the public that all important
substances have been adequately evaluated.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
It is too early to project the costs and benefits of this program
accurately. However, a preliminary rough estimate by industry indicated
a cost of $200,000 per chemical. It is also too early to quantify the
benefits of this program quantitatively. The goal of the program is to
reduce the risks identified below.
Risks:
Evidence is continuing to mount that wildlife and humans may be at risk
from exposure to chemicals operating through an endocrine mediated
pathway. Epidemiological studies on the associations between chemical
exposures and adverse endocrine changes continue to evaluate this
problem in humans. Wildlife effects have been more thoroughly
documented. Abnormalities in birds, marine mammals, fish, amphibians,
alligators, and shellfish have been documented in the U.S., Europe,
Japan, Canada, and Australia which have been linked to specific
chemical exposures. Evidence is sufficient for the U.S. to proceed on a
two track strategy: Research on the basic science regarding endocrine
disruption and screening with validated assays to identify which
chemicals are capable of interacting with the endocrine system. The
combination of research and test data submitted in this program will
enable EPA to take action to reduce risks.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Draft Procedures 11/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Additional Information:
SAN No. 4728; EPA publication information: Notice; Split from RIN 2070-
AD26. In August 2000, the Agency submited the required Status Report to
Congress. In March 2002, the Agency submitted the requested status
report to Congress on the Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation
subcommittee under the National Advisory Council on Environmental
Policy and Technology.
URL For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/index.htm
Agency Contact:
William Wooge
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7201M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8476
Fax: 202 564-8482
Email: wooge.william@epa.gov
Joe Nash
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8886
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: nash.joseph@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AD61
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
132. NANOSCALE MATERIALS UNDER TSCA
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
15 USC 2601et seq
CFR Citation:
Not yet determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Nanoscale materials are chemical substances containing structures on
the scale of approximately 1 to 100 nanometers, and may have different
molecular organizations and properties than the same chemical
substances on a larger scale. Because such materials may have novel
properties and present novel issues, evaluating and managing health and
environmental risks of nanoscale materials poses a new challenge. Under
the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA has the authority to require the
development of data necessary for the assessment of chemical substances
and mixtures from persons that manufacture or process them when
statutory findings concerning (1) production volume and exposure/entry
into the environment or (2) potential hazard can be made, and to
prevent and eliminate unreasonable risk of injury to human health and
environment from chemical substances and mixtures. The Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is establishing a voluntary
program to
[[Page 69930]]
assemble existing data and information from manufacturers and
processors of certain nanoscale materials. With this assembled
material, EPA will take appropriate steps to protect human health and
the environment from unreasonable risk from these substances. In
October 2006 EPA announced a collaborative process to design a
nanoscale material stewardship program inviting 500 organizations and
agencies to participate. On July 12, 2007, the Agency published a
document that describes specific elements regarding a voluntary
stewardship program for nanoscale materials, a proposed information
collection request, and a paper that describes determining the TSCA
inventory status of nanoscale materials. In addition, EPA conducted a
public meeting on August 2 to receive oral comments on the stewardship
program and the published documents. A notice announcing the
stewardship program including final versions of any documents is
scheduled to be published in February, 2008.
Statement of Need:
There is evolving understanding of a new technology with regard to
health and safety implications from exposure to nanoscale materials.
This is also true in the areas of environmental fate, efficacy of
exposure mitigation practices, etc. Therefore, at present the lack of
information leads to challenges in the assessment of and decision-
making on nanoscale materials.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under TSCA, EPA has the authority to require the development of data
adequate for the assessment of chemical substances and mixtures from
persons that manufacture or process them, and to prevent and eliminate
unreasonable risk of injury to human health and environment from
chemical substances and mixtures.
Alternatives:
The stewardship program is an effective yet flexible alternative to
traditional regulatory approaches.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
To be determined.
Risks:
EPA will use information from the stewardship program to inform
appropriate steps and future framework to protect human health and the
environment from unreasonable risk.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: TSCA Inventory
Status 07/12/07 72 FR 38083
Notice: Final Program
Announcement 02/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5058; EPA publication information: Notice: TSCA Inventory
Status - http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2007/July/Day-12/
t13558.htm; EPA Docket information: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0122
Agency Contact:
Jim Alwood
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8974
Fax: 202 564-4775
Email: alwood.jim@epa.gov
Jim Willis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0104
Fax: 202 564-9490
Email: willis.jim@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ30
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
133. IMPLEMENTING PERIODIC MONITORING IN FEDERAL AND STATE OPERATING
PERMIT PROGRAMS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 7401 et seq
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 70.6(c)(1); 40 CFR 71.6(c)(1); 40 CFR 64
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule would revise the Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule (40 CFR
part 64) to be implemented through the operating permits rule (40 CFR
parts 70 and 71) to define when periodic monitoring for monitoring
stationary source compliance must be created, and to include specific
criteria that periodic monitoring must meet. This rule satisfies our 4-
step strategy announced in the final Umbrella Monitoring Rule
(published January 22, 2004) to address monitoring inadequacies. The
four steps were: 1) To clarify the role of title V permits in
monitoring [Umbrella Monitoring Rule]; 2) to provide guidance for
improved monitoring in PM-Fine SIP's; 3) to take comment on correction
of inadequate monitoring provisions in underlying rules; and 4) to
provide guidance on periodic monitoring. We have completed the RIA data
collection and most of the analyses,and are beginning review with OPEI
and an economic sub-work group.
Statement of Need:
The ''periodic monitoring'' rules, 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and
71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), require that ``[w]here the applicable requirement
does not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental
monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as
monitoring), [each title V permit must contain] periodic monitoring
sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that
are representative of the source's compliance with the permit, as
reported pursuant to [Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)].
Such monitoring requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods,
units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent
with the applicable requirement. Recordkeeping provisions may be
sufficient to meet the requirements of [Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and
Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B)].`` Sections 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), called
the umbrella monitoring rule, require that each title V permit contain,
`'[c]onsistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, compliance
certification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and
conditions of the permit.'' On January 22, 2004 (69 Federal Register
[[Page 69931]]
3202), EPA announced that the Agency has determined that the correct
interpretation of Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is that these
sections do not provide a basis for requiring or authorizing review and
enhancement of existing monitoring in title V permits independent of
any review and enhancement as may be required under the periodic
monitoring rules, the CAM rule (40 CFR part 64)(62 FR 54900, October
22, 1997) where it applies, and other applicable requirements under the
Act.11 This action is to publish a separate proposed rule to address
what monitoring constitutes periodic monitoring under Sec. Sec.
70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and what types of monitoring
should be created under these provisions. The intended effect of the
rule revisions in this proposal is to focus case-by-case reviews on
those applicable requirements for which we can identify potential gaps
in the existing monitoring provisions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 502(b)(2) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations
establishing minimum requirements for operating permit programs,
including ``[m]onitoring and reporting requirements.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7661a(b)(2). Second, section 504(b) authorizes EPA to prescribe
``procedures and methods'' for monitoring ``by rule.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7661c(b). Section 504(b) provides: ``The Administrator may by rule
prescribe procedures and methods for determining compliance and for
monitoring and analysis of pollutants regulated under this Act, but
continuous emissions monitoring need not be required if alternative
methods are available that provide sufficiently reliable and timely
information for determining compliance. . . .`` Other provisions of
title V refer to the monitoring required in individual operating
permits. Section 504(c) of the Act, which contains the most detailed
statutory language concerning monitoring, requires that ''[e]ach [title
V permit] shall set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance
certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the
permit terms and conditions.`` 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661c(c). Section 504(c)
further specifies that ''[s]uch monitoring and reporting requirements
shall conform to any applicable regulation under [section 504(b)]. . .
.`` Section 504(a) more generally requires that ''[e]ach [title V
permit] shall include enforceable emission limitations and standards, .
. . and such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance
with applicable requirements of this Act, including the requirements of
the applicable implementation plan.`` 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661c(a).
Alternatives:
Some existing monitoring required under applicable requirements could
be improved and will be addressed in connection with both the upcoming
PM2.5 implementation rulemaking and by improving monitoring in certain
federal rules or monitoring in SIP rules not addressed in connection
with the PM2.5 implementation guidance or rulemaking over a longer time
frame.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
We are assessing the benefits associated with improved monitoring
including the reduction in source owner response time to potential
excess emissions problems. Such reduced response time to take
corrective action that will be required by the rule will result in
measurable emissions reductions that will be balanced against the cost
of increased equipment, data collection, and recordkeeping costs. We
estimate the total costs of the rule to be more than $100 million.
Risks:
There are no environmental and health risks associated with
implementing this monitoring rule; the underlying rules with emissions
limits address those risks for each subject source category. The effect
of the monitoring resulting from this rule will be to reduce the
occurrence of excess emissions episodes that raise such risks.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Additional Information:
SAN No. 4699.2; Split from RIN 2060-AK29.
Agency Contact:
Peter Westlin
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C304-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1058
Fax: 919 541-4028
Email: westlin.peter@epamail.epa.gov
Robin Langdon
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
D205-02
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4048
Email: langdon.robin@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN00
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
134. REVISIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF POTENTIAL TO EMIT (PTE)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 7401; 42 USC 7412; 42 USC 7414; 42 USC 7416; 42 USC 7601
CFR Citation:
40 CFR Part 51; 40 CFR 52; 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 71
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking rule would revise the definition of the term
``potential to emit'' (PTE) used in numerous regulations to determine
the applicability of major source requirements. The regulatory
amendments will address enforceability issues raised in court decisions
by the D.C. Circuit regarding the types of limitations allowed to be
used in a source's PTE calculations. We plan revisions to the
definitions of PTE for three major source Act programs: (1) Major New
Source Review (NSR) program, (2) the section 112 program that regulates
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and (3) the title V Federal operating
permits program. We also plan to amend regulations that were not part
of the court cases challenging the definition of potential to emit
(e.g., visibility rules and Federal operating permits program rules) in
order to be consistent with other EPA regulations. In addition to
addressing the issue of whether PTE limitations have to be federally
enforceable, the revised definition of PTE would set forth the
[[Page 69932]]
specific criteria a limitation must meet to be effective. Finally, the
proposal would clarify that EPA now uses the term ``federally
enforceable'' to refer only to the ability of the Federal government or
citizens to enforce the requirement in federal courts, and not to the
effectiveness of PTE limits as well.
Statement of Need:
The proposed rulemaking responds to three court decisions issued in
1995 and 1996 that remanded EPA's regulatory requirement that PTE
limits be federally enforceable. Although the federal enforceability
requirement was vacated in the Federal PSD, NSR, and title V rules, the
section 112 program rules were not vacated and thus still contain the
federal enforceability requirement. In the interim however, until EPA
clarifies the issues related to federal enforceability of PTE limits,
current EPA policy recognizes State enforceable PTE limits for purposes
of avoiding section 112 and Title V requirements in many circumstances.
The new regulations would respond to the court's remands in the various
cases.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The proposed rule responds to three court orders regarding the federal
enforceability component in the definition of ``potential to emit.''
See National Mining Association v. EPA (59 F. 3d 1351, D.C. Cir. 1995),
Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. EPA, No. 89-1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15,
1995) and Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA, No. 96-1224 (D.C.
Cir. June 28, 1996). In those cases, the court questioned federally
enforceability as a necessary criteria for effective PTE limits. The
definitions of PTE in the implementing regulations for the major source
programs interpret the statutory term ``potential to emit'' and provide
a legal mechanism for sources that wish to restrain their emissions to
avoid triggering major source requirements. Several provisions of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) require that ``major'' sources be
regulated more stringently than sources that are not major. A ``major''
source generally is defined as one that either ``emits or has the
potential to emit'' air pollutants above a specified amount (referred
to as major source thresholds). Until EPA addresses the issues and
clarifies the PTE definitions, there will be some uncertainty regarding
what is required for enforceability of PTE limits. Parties currently
rely on EPA guidance for determining if PTE limits are legally
enforceable and effective.
Alternatives:
To address the court decisions EPA must either (i) remove the exclusive
federal enforceability requirement or (ii) provide an explanation as to
why federal enforceability enhances the effectiveness of PTE limits to
such a degree that it is within reason to require federally enforceable
limits. In this rulemaking, EPA will consider both options provided by
the court and propose our preferred option. The proposal will
specifically request comment on our preferred approach as well as any
alternative options.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The proposed rule will not impose additional costs on sources. First,
PTE limits are voluntary in that the source chooses to take a PTE limit
rather than meet major source requirements. Moreover, currently,
sources that wish to take PTE limits must demonstrate that their
restrictions are effective according to a number of existing EPA policy
documents and applicable regulations, for example under minor new
source review regulations and guidance. By codifying the criteria that
make PTE limits effective, we will be providing additional certainty
and clarity for sources wishing to obtain PTE limits. We expect that
clarifying enforceability would yield benefits in terms of improved
information about sources emissions and compliance. But because PTE
limits generally reduce potential rather than actual emissions and
since PTE limits are already in widespread use, we do not expect
significant environmental impacts associated with this rule change.
These regulations will impose a burden increase initially on those
State and local programs that may need to revise or remove PTE
definitions in their rules to make them consistent with these
amendments as approved in the final rule. Thereafter, we expect a
reduction in burden for all programs due to a less burdensome
administrative process.
Risks:
There are no environmental and health risks associated with
implementing the proposed amended PTE definition; the underlying rules
with emissions limits address those risks for each subject source
category.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State, Tribal
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5025;
Agency Contact:
Grecia Castro
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C504-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1351
Fax: 919 541-5509
Email: castro.grecia@epamail.epa.gov
Lynn Hutchinson
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
C339-03
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-5795
Fax: 919-541-4028
Email: hutchinson.lynn@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN65
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
135. RISK AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW PHASE II GROUP 2
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
CAA Sections 112(f)(2), 112(d)(6)
CFR Citation:
00 CFR NYD
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) EPA is required to review MACT standards
and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years. EPA also must evaluate the MACT standards within 8
years after promulgation and promulgate standards under CAA Section
112(f)(2) if required to protect public health with an ample margin of
safety. EPA will combine the remaining MACT source categories requiring
residual risk and technology reviews into several groups to enable us
to more closely meet statutory dates, raise and
[[Page 69933]]
resolve programmatic issues in one action, minimize resources by using
available data and focusing on high risk sources, and provide
consistent review and analysis. We will use available data including
emissions from the most recent 2002 national emission inventory (NEI)
and augment it with available site-specific data. This action was
originally referred to as RTR Phase II and included 34 MACT standards
and 50 source categories. We reduced the scope of this action and will
now focus on RTR Phase II Group 2 which consists of 11 MACT standards
covering 21 source categories with MACT compliance dates of 2002 and
earlier. We plan to model each MACT source category to obtain
inhalation risks, including cancer risk and incidence, population
cancer risk, and non-cancer effects (chronic and acute). We also plan
to evaluate multipathway risk associated with those source categories
with significant levels of persistent and bioaccumulative HAP. We
published an ANPRM in March 2007 to solicit public comments and
corrections on emissions data that will be used to assess risk for
these source categories. We will remodel the categories based on the
updated data. EPA will then evaluate the effectiveness and cost of
additional risk reduction options and make acceptability and ample-
margin-of-safety determinations in accordance with Benzene NESHAP
decision framework. Where the need for additional controls are
identified, standards would be developed that include technology, work
practice, or performance standards as amendments to the existing MACT
standards.
The 11 MACT standards, the 21 source categories, and the associated
NAICS codes are listed below.
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities, 336411
Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, 4883
Mineral Wool Production, 32799
Natural Gas Transmission and Storage, 486210
Oil and Natural Gas Production, 211
Pharmaceuticals Production, 3254
Group I Polymers and Resins, 325212
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production
Hypalon\TM\Production
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
Polybutadiene Rubber Production
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production,
Group IV Polymers and Resins, 325211
Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene Production
Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production
Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production
Nitrile Resins Production
Polyethylene Terephthalate Production
Polystyrene Production
Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants, 331312
Printing and Publishing Industry, 32311
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations, 36611
EPA will finalize these in two groups; one group will be finalized
following the schedule noted below, the other will be finalized in
2009.
Statement of Need:
Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) EPA is required to review MACT standards
and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years. EPA also must evaluate the MACT standards within 8
years after promulgation and promulgate standards under CAA Section
112(f)(2) if required to protect public health with an ample margin of
safety.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Clean Air Act Sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6).
Alternatives:
Where additional controls are identified, risk reduction alternatives
will be evaluated that include technology, work practice, or
performance standards. Any alternatives that are selected would be
implemented as amendments to the existing MACT standards.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
For the risk reduction alternatives we will evaluate costs, emission
reductions, risk reductions, various measures of cost effectiveness and
where appropriate, benefits analysis. We plan to consider the added
benefit of reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, including PM, and
green house gas emissions.The facts underlying the risk determination
will be key factors in making any subsequent technology review
determination.
Risks:
Each MACT source category will be assessed to determine cancer and
noncancer inhalation risks, environmental risks, and multipathway
risks. Cancer risk will include maximum individual risk (MIR),
incidence, and population risk, and non-cancer effects will include
chronic and acute risks. We also plan to evaluate the multipathway risk
associated with those source categories with significant levels of
persistent and bioaccumulative HAP.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 03/29/07 72 FR 14734
ANPRM; comment period
extension 05/25/07 72 FR 29287
NPRM 11/00/07
Final Action 11/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5093; EPA publication information: ANPRM;
Sectors Affected:
3364 Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing; 3313 Alumina and
Aluminum Production and Processing; 32731 Cement Manufacturing; 3341
Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum
Refineries; 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum); 22132 Sewage Treatment
Facilities
Agency Contact:
Paula Hirtz
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01
RTP, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-2618
Fax: 919 541-0246
Email: hirtz.paula@epa.gov
Ken Hustvedt
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
E143-01
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 919 541-5395
Fax: 919 541-0246
Email: hustvedt.ken@epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AN85
[[Page 69934]]
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
136. RULEMAKING TO ADDRESS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR
VEHICLES
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
Clean Air Act Sections 202, 206, 208, 211
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 86, 40 CFR 80
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This action will implement the President's recent Executive Order to
address greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. This regulatory
effort will evaluate reductions in gas consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions from motor vehicles, using as a starting point the
President's proposal to reduce gasoline consumption by up to 20% over
the next 10 years. By increasing the supply of alternative fuels and
making motor vehicles more energy efficient, this effort will serve to
establish rules giving effect to the President's proposal.
Statement of Need:
On May 14, 2007 President Bush signed an Executive Order requiring
Federal agencies to take the first steps toward regulations to control
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from motor vehicles and their fuels. The
President also directed agencies to take steps to cut gasoline
consumption and GHG from motor vehicles using his ``Twenty in Ten''
plan as a starting point. This plan would achieve reductions in U.S.
gasoline consumption of up to 20 percent over the next 10 years. Up to
a fifteen-percent reduction in petroleum-based consumption would come
through the use of renewable and alternative fuels, and up to a five-
percent reduction would come from increased fuel efficiency for cars
and trucks. The President directed EPA, DOT, DOE, and USDA to complete
this process by the end of 2008. Based on this directive, we have
established a schedule to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking by the
end of 2007 and a final rule by the end of October 2008.
Summary of Legal Basis:
On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must determine,
under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, whether greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air
pollution that endangers public health or welfare. Based on that
Supreme Court ruling, GHG are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
EPA expects to address whether GHG from new motor vehicles meet the
endangerment criteria in the process of proposing regulations to
control GHG from new motor vehicles and their fuels. EPA is following
the directions of the Presidential Executive Order in proposing such
standards.
The primary authority to regulate motor vehicles to reduce their
emissions falls under Section 202(a) (1) of the Clean Air Act. This
provision requires that the Administrator shall by regulation prescribe
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any
class or classes of new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines which
in his judgment cause or contribute to air pollution and which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. A
regulatory action depends on an Administrator determination that the
GHG emissions from new motor vehicles causes, or contributes to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public
health or welfare.
In setting fuel standards, two sections of the Clean Air Act are being
considered. The primary authority for regulating motor vehicle fuels
and fuel additives falls under Section 211(c) where the Administrator
may, on the basis of information available to him, by regulation,
control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce,
offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad
vehicle where a similar endangerment finding is made. This section
provides authority to address all fuels and additives, including
renewable and alternative fuels. Further, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct 2005, Public Law 109-58) amended the Clean Air Act by adding
section Section 211(o) which requires EPA to set minimum volume
standards for renewable fuel use. EPAct 2005 established the volumes of
renewable fuel to be used through 2012, and established a minimum level
to be used after that date which EPA can adjust upward based on
consideration of certain factors. EPA is considering an integrated
compliance approach that will use both 211(c) and 211(o) authorities
for the fuel-related provisions of the proposed GHG rule.
Alternatives:
EPA will seek comment on alternatives to approaches being developed in
the proposed rulemaking.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Cost and benefit information is being developed as the rulemaking
process proceeds. Costs and benefit information can not be determined
until after regulatory approaches have been proposed. Preliminary cost
and benefit information will be provided when the rule is officially
proposed.
Risks:
The risks from emissions contributing to GHG's and their impact on
public health and welfare are being evaluated and will be discussed as
the endangerment finding process proceeds.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/07
Final Action 10/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5164;
Agency Contact:
Paul Argyropoulos
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6401A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1123
Email: argyropoulos.paul@epamail.epa.gov
Robin Moran
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
ASD
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 734 214-4781
Email: moran.robin@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2060-AO56
[[Page 69935]]
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
137. TEST RULE; TESTING OF CERTAIN HIGH PRODUCTION VOLUME (HPV)
CHEMICALS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
15 USC 2603
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 790 to 799
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
EPA is issuing test rules under section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) to require testing and recordkeeping requirements
for certain high production volume (HPV) chemicals (i.e., chemicals
which are manufactured (including imported) in the aggregate at more
than 1 million pounds on an annual basis) that have not been sponsored
under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program. Although varied based on
specific data needs for the particular chemical, the data generally
collected under these rules may include: acute toxicity, repeat dose
toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, mutagenicity,
ecotoxicity, and environmental fate. The first rule proposed testing
for 37 HPV chemicals with substantial worker exposure. When finalized
on March 16, 2006, the number of chemicals included in the first final
rule was reduced to 17 based on new information on annual production
volumes, worker exposure, and commitments to the voluntary HPV
Challenge Program. Subsequent test rules, including a proposed rule
scheduled to be published in spring of 2008 are expected to require
similar screening level testing for additional unsponsored HPV
Challenge Program chemicals.
Statement of Need:
Prior to inception of the HPV Challenge Program, in 1998, EPA found
that, of those non-polymeric organic substances produced or imported in
amounts equal to or greater than 1 million pounds per year based on
1990 reporting for EPA's Inventory Update Rule (IUR), only 7 percent
had a full set of publicly available internationally recognized basic
health and environmental fate/effects screening test data. Of the over
2,800 HPV chemicals based on 1990 data, 43% had no publicly available
basic hazard data. For the remaining chemicals, limited amounts of the
data were available. This lack of available hazard data compromised the
ability of EPA and others to determine whether these HPV chemicals pose
potential risks to human health or the environment, as well as the
public's right-to-know about the hazards of chemicals that are found in
their environment, their homes, their workplaces, and the products that
they buy. On April 21, 1998, a national initiative, known as the
Chemical Right-To-Know (ChemRTK) Initiative, was announced by EPA. This
Initiative is designed to collect and, where needed, develop the basic
screening level toxicity and fate data that are necessary to provide
the information needed to assess the potential hazards/risks that may
be posed by exposure to HPV chemicals. A primary component of the
ChemRTK Initiative is the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, which was
created in cooperation with industry, environmental groups, and other
interested parties, and is designed to assemble basic screening level
test data on the potential hazards and fate of HPV chemicals. Since the
inception of the HPV Challenge Program in 1998, industry chemical
manufacturers and importers have participated in the Challenge Program
by sponsoring 2,250 chemicals with sponsorship by more that 350
companies and 100 consortia. EPA is in the process of developing hazard
characterizations based on the data received to date under the
Challenge Program. Data needs which remain unmet in either the
voluntary HPV Challenge Program or through complementary international
efforts (i.e., the OECD SIDS HPV Program and the International Council
of Chemical Associations) may be addressed through rulemaking under
TSCA section 4.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These test rules would be issued under section 4(a)(1)(B) of TSCA.
Section 2(b)(1) of TSCA states that it is the policy of the United
States that ``adequate data should be developed with respect to the
effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the
environment and that the development of such data should be the
responsibility of those who manufacture [which is defined by statute to
include import] and those who process such chemical substances and
mixtures[.]'' To implement this policy, TSCA section 4(a) mandates that
EPA require by rule that manufacturers and processors of chemical
substances and mixtures conduct testing if the Administrator finds
that: (1)(A)(i) the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing,
use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any
combination of such activities, may present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment, (ii) there are insufficient data
and experience upon which the effects of such manufacture, distribution
in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of such substance or mixture
or of any combination of such activities on health or the environment
can reasonably be determined or predicted, and (iii) testing of such
substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to
develop such data; or (B)(i) a chemical substance or mixture is or will
be produced in substantial quantities, and (I) it enters or may
reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial
quantities or (II) there is or may be significant or substantial human
exposure to such substance or mixture, (ii) there are insufficient data
and experience upon which the effects of the manufacture, distribution
in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of such substance or mixture
or of any combination of such activities on health or the environment
can reasonably be determined or predicted, and (iii) testing of such
substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to
develop such data.
Alternatives:
The strategy and overall approach that EPA is using to address data
collection needs for U.S. HPV chemicals includes a voluntary component
(the HPV Challenge Program), certain international efforts, and these
rulemakings under TSCA. The issuance of a rulemaking is often the
Agency's final mechanism for obtaining this important information.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The potential benefits of these test rules are substantial. For those
chemical substances included in these rules, EPA believes that there
are insufficient data to reasonably determine or predict their effects
on health or the environment. EPA believes that the internationally
recognized basic health and environmental fate/effects screening
testing that would be required in these rules would provide critical
information needed to conduct screening level characterizations of the
health and environmental hazards of these substances. This information,
when combined with information about
[[Page 69936]]
exposure and uses, will allow the Agency and others to evaluate the
potential health and environmental risks of these substances and to
take appropriate follow up action. The cost of the baseline screening
testing laboratory costs that would be imposed is estimated to be about
$300,000 per chemical for a full set of tests. It is unlikely, however,
for a chemical to need a full set of tests, which would only occur if
none of the data in question already exists.
Risks:
Data collected and/or developed under these test rules, when combined
with information about exposure and uses, will allow the Agency and
others to evaluate and prioritize potential health and environmental
effects and take appropriate follow up action.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/26/00 65 FR 81658
Final Action 03/16/06 71 FR 13709
Direct Final Action;
Revocation; Coke-Oven
Light Oil (Coal) 12/08/06 71 FR 71058
NPRM2 03/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Additional Information:
SAN No. 3990; EPA publication information: NPRM - http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2000/December/Day-26/t32497.htm; EPA Docket
information: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033
Sectors Affected:
325 Chemical Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum Refineries
URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest
Agency Contact:
Paul Campanella
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8091
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: campanella.paul@epa.gov
Greg Schweer
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-8469
Fax: 202 564-4765
Email: schweer.greg@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AD16
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
138. PESTICIDES; DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTIMICROBIALS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 136 to 136y
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 158 and 161
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
EPA will update and revise its pesticide data requirements for
antimicrobial pesticide products. The revisions will revise its
existing data requirements to reflect current regulatory and scientific
standards. The data requirements will cover all scientific disciplines
for antimicrobial pesticides, including product chemistry and residue
chemistry, toxicology, and environmental fate and effects.
Statement of Need:
The Agency is in the process of updating its data requirements for
pesticides. Since the current data requirements were first published in
1984, the information needed to support the registration of a pesticide
has evolved along with the expanding knowledge base of pesticide
chemical technology. Over the years, revisions and updates to the data
requirements have been applied on a case-by-case basis. In 2007, the
Agency promulgated data requirements for conventional, and biochemical
and microbial pesticide chemicals. As part of this action, the 1984
data requirements were transferred intact to part 161 to provide
continued regulatory coverage for antimicrobial pesticides until the
Agency can promulgate a final regulation. This rule will update and
revise the existing data requirements for antimicrobial pesticide
products. These revisions build upon those previously proposed for
conventional chemicals, but are tailored to the specific data needs of
antimicrobial pesticides. The revisions will provide stakeholders with
greater transparency and clarity to determine the data needed for an
antimicrobial pesticide product without having extensive consultations
with the Agency, more focused use patterns that reflect current
practice, and a more efficient registration process. When the Agency
promulgates the revised data requirements in part 158 subpart W, the
current data requirements in part 161 will be removed.
Summary of Legal Basis:
7 U.S.C. 136 to 136y
Alternatives:
The Agency is required by its various statutory mandates to establish
data requirements that support its regulatory decisions. The Agency re-
evaluates those data requirements in light of scientific advances,
analytical improvements, and new technology, to provide a sound
scientific basis for those decisions. On a case by case basis, the
Agency considers whether alternative regulatory methods, such as
restrictions on use, would obviate the need for data, and explores
means of introducing flexibility and clarity to reduce burdens on the
regulated community. For this rule, EPA will analyze keeping the
current data requirements as specified in part 161, using the data
requirements promulgated for conventional chemicals, and promulgating
new data requirements specifically for antimicrobials.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The Agency is conducting an economic analysis to support the rule.
Anticipated benefits include less uncertainty and clearer understanding
of the actual risk, increased clarity and transparency to the regulated
community, improved scientific basis for pesticide regulatory
decisions, and enhanced international harmonization with less
duplication of data. The increased costs of the rule are estimated
[[Page 69937]]
as greater than $3 million /year for the 72 companies that hold
registrations or have applied for a registration for an antimicrobial
product.
Risks:
The revisions to the data requirements to be proposed, like the
existing requirements in part 158, would require an applicant for
pesticide registration to supply the Agency with information on the
pesticide: composition, toxicity, potential human exposure,
environmental properties and ecological effects, and, in certain cases,
efficacy. This information is used to assess the human health and
environmental risks associated with the product. The data that will be
required by this regulation are the foundation of EPA's risk assessment
for antimicrobial pesticides, and provide a sound scientific basis for
any licensing decisions that impose requirements that mitigate or
reduce risks. Under FIFRA, the applicant for registration must
demonstrate to the Agency's satisfaction that the pesticide product
will not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects'' to humans or to the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 07/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Additional Information:
SAN No. 4173
Sectors Affected:
32519 Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 32551 Paint and
Coating Manufacturing; 32532 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturing; 32561 Soap and Cleaning Compound Manufacturing
URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/data.htm
Agency Contact:
Kathryn Boyle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-6304
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: boyle.kathryn@epa.gov
Jean Frane
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5944
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: frane.jean@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
139. PESTICIDES; COMPETENCY STANDARDS FOR OCCUPATIONAL USERS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 136; 7 USC 136i; 7 USC 136w
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 171; 40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 152
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The EPA is proposing change to federal regulations guiding the
certified pesticide applicator program (40 CFR 171). Change is sought
to strengthen the regulations to better protect pesticide applicators
and the public and the environment from harm due to pesticide exposure.
Changes may include having certain occupational users of pesticides
demonstrate competency by meeting minimum competency requirements. The
need for change arose from EPA discussions with key stakeholders. EPA
has been in extensive discussions with stakeholders since 1997 when the
Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG) was established.
CTAG is a forum used by regulatory and academic stakeholders to discuss
the current state of, and the need for improvements in, the national
certified pesticide applicator program. Throughout these extensive
interactions with stakeholders, EPA has learned of the need for changes
to the regulation.
Statement of Need:
The regulations governing the Federal and State certification of
pesticide applicators, 40 CFR part 171, were originally promulgated in
1974. Since that time State certification programs have gone beyond the
Federal regulations in a number of areas. The need for change arose
from EPA discussions with key stakeholders. EPA has been in extensive
discussions with stakeholders since 1997 when the Certification and
Training Assessment Group (CTAG) was established. CTAG is a forum used
by regulatory and academic stakeholders to discuss the current state
of, and the need for improvements in, the national certified pesticide
applicator program. Throughout these extensive interactions with
stakeholders, EPA has learned of the need for changes to the
regulation. Stakeholders identified the need for a minimum standard of
competency for all occupational users of pesticides as well as the
establishment of standards for determination of applicator competency
and continued competency.
Summary of Legal Basis:
7 U.S.C. 136w
Alternatives:
EPA is considering various alternatives to regulation change based upon
stakeholder input. The Agency is in the formative stages of this
regulatory effort, and alternatives have not yet been fully identified
and evaluated.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
EPA will develop an economic analysis to support this rule.
Risks:
The proposed regulation would require that certain occupational users
of pesticides meet minimum competency standards and require additional
competency determinations of those who use the most toxic pesticides in
a manner that could result in significant exposure to the public. These
changes would strengthen the regulations that protect pesticide
applicators and the public from potential harm due to pesticide
exposure.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
[[Page 69938]]
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State, Tribal
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5007
Agency Contact:
Kathy Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-7002
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: davis.kathy@epa.gov
Richard Pont
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-6448
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: pont.richard@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ20
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
140. PESTICIDES; AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD REVISIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 136; 7 USC 136w
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 170
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The EPA is developing a proposal to revise the federal regulations
guiding agricultural worker protection (40 CFR 170). The changes under
consideration are intended to improve agricultural workers' ability to
protect themselves from potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide
residues. In addition, EPA is proposing to make adjustments to improve
and clarify current requirements and facilitate enforcement. Other
changes sought are to establish a right-to-know Hazard Communication
program and make improvements to pesticide safety training, with
improved worker safety the intended outcome. The need for change arose
from EPA discussions with key stakeholders beginning in 1996 and
continuing through 2004. EPA held nine public meetings throughout the
country during which the public submitted written and verbal comments
on issues of their concern. In 2000 through 2004, EPA held meetings
where invited stakeholders identified their issues and concerns with
the regulations.
Statement of Need:
The regulations governing the protection of agricultural workers, 40
CFR part 170, were promulgated in 1992. Since that time, stakeholders
provided input on areas to improve the regulation, particularly to
better protect agricultural field workers and handlers from pesticide
risks. The need for change arose from EPA discussions with key
stakeholders beginning in 1996 and continuing through 2004. EPA held
nine public meetings throughout the country during which the public
submitted written and verbal comments on issues of their concern. In
2000 through 2004, EPA held meetings where invited stakeholders
identified their issues and concerns with the regulations. Stakeholders
identified the need for a minimum standard of competency for all
occupational users of pesticides as well as the establishment of
standards for determination of applicator competency and continued
competency.
Summary of Legal Basis:
7 U.S.C. 136w
Alternatives:
EPA is considering various alternatives to regulation change based upon
stakeholder input. The Agency is in the formative stages of this
regulatory effort, and alternatives have not been fully identified and
evaluated.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
EPA will develop an economic analysis to support this rule.
Risks:
This proposal would reduce the risks to agricultural workers from
potential exposure to pesticides and pesticide exposure.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5006
Agency Contact:
Kathy Davis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-7002
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: davis.kathy@epa.gov
Richard Pont
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-6448
Fax: 703 308-2962
Email: pont.richard@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ22
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
141. PESTICIDES; DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT-INCORPORATED PROTECTANTS
(PIPS)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 136a; 7 USC 136w
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 158 and 174
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
EPA intends to propose codifying data requirements for the pesticide
registration of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). These data
requirements are intended to provide EPA with data and other
information necessary for the registration of PIPs. These requirements
would improve the Agency's ability to make regulatory decisions about
the human health and environmental effects of these products. By
codifying data requirements specific to PIPs, the regulated community
would have a better understanding of and could better prepare for the
registration process. This proposed rule
[[Page 69939]]
is one in a series of proposals to update and clarify pesticide data
requirements.
Statement of Need:
There are currently no separate data requirements for plant-
incorporated protectants (PIPs), a new type of pesticide first
registered in the mid-1990s. Instead, the Agency has relied on the
microbial pesticide data requirements tailored on a case-by-case basis.
The information needed to support the registration of a PIP has evolved
along with the expanding knowledge base of pesticide chemical
technology. When established, these data requirements will reflect
current scientific knowledge and understanding. Establishing these data
requirements will provide stakeholders with greater transparency and
clarity to determine the data needed for PIP pesticide product without
having extensive consultations with the Agency and a more efficient
registration process. Further, establishing these data requirements
will improve the Agency's ability to make regulatory decisions about
human health and environmental effects of PIP pesticides to better
protect wildlife, the environment and people.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The final rule will describe data and information needed to support
multiple pesticide mandates under two statutes: the registration,
reregistration, registration review, and experimental use permit
programs under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), and the tolerance-setting and reassessment program under the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). These programs are
authorized under FIFRA sections 3, 4, and 5 and FFDCA sec 408.
Alternatives:
The Agency is required by its various statutory mandates to establish
data requirements that support its regulatory decisions. On a case-by-
case basis, the Agency considers whether alternative regulatory methods
would obviate the need for data and explores the means of introducing
flexibility and clarity to reduce burdens on the regulated community.
For this rule, EPA will analyze several scenarios including
establishing data requirements tailored specifically to PIP pesticides,
not establishing any data requirements, and remaining status quo with
relying on the microbial pesticide data requirements tailored on a
case-by-case basis.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
The Agency is conducting an economic analysis to support this rule.
Anticipated benefits include greater certainty and clearer
understanding of the actual risk, increased clarity and transparency to
the regulated community, improved scientific basis for pesticide
regulatory decisions, and enhanced international harmonization with
less duplication of data. However, since this rulemaking is currently
under Agency workgroup discussion, the specific costs and benefits of
the action have not yet been determined. The Agency expects this rule
to result in decreased illness and death resulting from pesticide
exposure.
Risks:
The proposed revisions to the data requirements, like the existing
requirements in part 158, would require an applicant for pesticide
registration to supply the Agency with information on the pesticide:
Composition, toxicity, potential human exposure, environmental
properties, and ecological effects. This information is used to assess
the human health and environmental risks associated with the product.
The data that will be required by this regulation form the foundation
of EPA's risk assessment for pesticides, and provide a sound scientific
basis for any licensing decisions that impose requirements that
mitigate or reduce risks, and that ensure that pesticide resides in
food meet the ``reasonable certainty of no harm'' risk standard of the
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5005
Agency Contact:
Kristen Brush
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-0308
Email: brush.kristen@epa.gov
William Schneider
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7511P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8683
Fax: 703 308-7026
Email: schneider.william@epa.gov
RIN: 2070-AJ27
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
142. REVISIONS TO THE SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE
(SPCC) RULE
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
33 USC 1321
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 112
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
EPA will propose to amend 40 CFR part 112, which includes the Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule promulgated under
the authority of the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule may address a
variety of issues associated with the July 2002 SPCC final rule.
Statement of Need:
The proposed rule is necessary to clarify the regulatory obligations of
SPCC facility owners and operators and to reduce the regulatory burden
where appropriate.
Summary of Legal Basis:
33 USC 1321 et seq.
Alternatives:
EPA considered alternative options for various aspects of this proposed
rule, following receipt of public comments, and through logical
outgrowth of previously considered alternatives.
[[Page 69940]]
Alternative options included (1) exempting asphalt cement containers
from the requirements of the SPCC rule; (2) exempting farms of a
certain storage capacity, where the exact storage capacity has not been
specified; (3) providing an exemption only for residential heating oil
containers located at farms; (4) providing the same relief as in the
preferred option to owners and operators of qualified facilities with
total oil storage capacities of 5,000 gallons or less; (5) giving the
option wherein owners and operators of new production facilities would
be allowed one year after the start of operations to prepare and
implement an SPCC Plan; (6) allowing the facilities to choose between a
flowline maintenance program with a contingency plan (as in the
proposed amendments) and providing a method of secondary containment
for flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines; (7) regulatory
alternatives for oil production facilities that have wells that produce
10 barrels or less of crude oil per day and are known as ``stripper
wells.''
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
At the 7 percent discount rate, the proposed amendments to the SPCC
rule are expected to yield annualized cost savings of approximately $7
million from the proposed exemption of hot-mix asphalt containers, $4
million from the proposed changes for exempting pesticide application
equipment, $2 million from the proposed exemption of residential
heating oil containers, $251 million from the proposed amendments to
the definition of facility, $1 million from the proposed clarification
to the facility diagram requirements, $48 million from the proposed
revision to the loading rack definition, $24 million from the
streamlined requirements for Tier 1 qualified facilities, $7 million
from the proposed amendments to the security requirements, $9 million
from the amendments to integrity testing requirements, $2 million for
owners and operators of AFVO facilities, $25 million for owners and
operators of production facilities from the six-month delay in SPCC
Plan preparation and implementation, and $8 million from exemption of
flow-through process vessels from sized secondary containment.
Additional benefits of this rule were not quantified because the impact
of the rule on human health and environment are expected to be
marginal. The principal effect of the proposed amendments would be
lower compliance costs for owners and operators of certain types of
facilities and equipment.
Risks:
In the absence of quantitative information on the change in risk
related to the specific proposed amendments, EPA conducted a
qualitative assessment, which suggests that the proposed amendments
will not lead to a significant increase in oil discharge risk.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice Clarifying Certain
Issues 05/25/04 69 FR 29728
NPRM 1 yr Compliance
Extension 06/17/04 69 FR 34014
Final 18 months
Compliance Extension 08/11/04 69 FR 48794
NODA re certain
facilities 09/20/04 69 FR 56184
NODA re oil-filled and
process equipment 09/20/04 69 FR 56182
NPRM 10/15/07 72 FR 58377
NPRM Comment Period End 12/14/07
Final Action 10/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Additional Information:
SAN No. 2634.2; Split from RIN 2050-AC62.
URL For More Information:
www.epa.gov/oilspill/spcc.htm
Agency Contact:
Hugo Fleischman
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-1968
Fax: 202 564-2625
Email: fleischman.hugo@epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG16
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
143. REVISIONS TO LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS TREATMENT STANDARDS AND
AMENDMENTS TO RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPENT PETROLEUM REFINING
HYDROTREATING AND HYDROREFINING CATALYSTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1006; 42 USC 2002(a); 42 USC 3001 to 3009; 42 USC 3014; 42 USC
6905; 42 USC 6906; 42 CFR 6912; 42 USC 6921; 42 USC 6922; 42 USC 6924
to 6927; 42 USC 6934; 42 USC 6937; 42 USC 6938
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 266; 40 CFR 268
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Pursuant to regulations found at 40 CFR 260.20, the Vanadium Producers
and Reclaimers Association (VPRA) submitted a rulemaking petition to
the EPA requesting that the Agency amend the hazardous waste
regulations affecting the treatment and disposal of certain petroleum
refinery process wastes. Specifically, VPRA requested that EPA revise
the treatment standards under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
Program for the disposal of spent hydrotreating and hydrorefining
catalysts (waste codes K171 and K172, respectively). EPA is publishing
a notice in response to the rulemaking petition, by proposing to amend
the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) requirements for EPA Waste Code
K172 by adding numeric treatment standards for certain polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). EPA is also responding to other elements
of the rulemaking petition in this notice. Finally, in response to
separate comments received from petroleum industry representatives, EPA
is taking this opportunity to propose changes to its regulations to
help encourage consistent levels of recycling of spent hydrotreating
and hydrorefining catalysts, in a manner that protects human health and
the environment.
Statement of Need:
The purpose of this proposed rule, as described in the abstract, is to
respond to a rulemaking petition. EPA believes that the petitioners
have made suitably credible arguments that the existing requirements
for treating and disposing
[[Page 69941]]
of certain refinery wastes may need adjusting, thus this proposal. In
addition, regarding the recycling part of this action (again, described
in the abstract above) EPA determined that exploring ways to encourage
the recycling of these spent catalysts safely has merit.
Summary of Legal Basis:
There is no court order requiring this action.
Alternatives:
EPA decided that the alternative of not proposing this rule was not the
option of choice. See Statement of Need. Further evaluation of
alternatives may occur during the development of this action; currently
in the early stages of development.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
No formal cost/benefit analysis has been performed to date.
Risks:
This rule is responding to a petition that alleges EPA's current rules
do not adequately address the risk to human health and the environment
associated with the disposal of spent refinery catalysts. EPA is
currently trying to better understand the risk issues. At this time,
this is undetermined.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Data
Availability 10/20/03 68 FR 59935
NPRM 06/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
State
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5070; EPA publication information: Notice of Data Availability
- http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2003/November/Day-24/
f29319.htm; ; EPA Docket information: Legacy Docket No. RCRA-2003-0023
for 10/20/03 NODA
Agency Contact:
Ross Elliott
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304P
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8748
Fax: 703 308-7903
Email: elliott.ross@epa.gov
RIN: 2050-AG34
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
144. NPDES VESSEL VACATUR
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation:
40 CFR 122.3
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This action is necessary because EPA must address a District Court
ruling (currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit) which vacates a regulatory exemption at 40 CFR 122.3(a).
Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (ND CA, C 03-5760 SI). The regulation excludes discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES permitting
and has existed, essentially unchanged, since 1973. Unless overruled on
appeal, the Court's September 2006 ruling will vacate the entire
exclusion as of September 30, 2008. As of September 30, 2008,
discharges of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
that had formerly been exempted from NPDES permitting by the regulation
will be subject to prohibitions in CWA Sec. 301(a) against the
discharge of a pollutant without a permit.
Statement of Need:
This action is necessary because EPA needs to address a District Court
ruling (currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit) which vacates a regulatory exemption at 40 CFR 122.3(a).
Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (ND CA, C 03-5760 SI). The existing regulation excludes
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from NPDES
permitting and has been on the books, essentially unchanged, since
1973. The Court's September 2006 ruling will vacate the entire
exclusion as of September 30, 2008.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis is the Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1251 et seq.
Alternatives:
Unknown.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Unknown.
Risks:
Unknown.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Proposal 01/00/08
Final To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
SAN No. 5162;
Agency Contact:
Ruby Cooper
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-0757
Fax: 202 564-9544
Email: cooper.ruby@epamail.epa.gov
John Lishman
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4504T
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 566-1364
Email: lishman.john@epamail.epa.gov
RIN: 2040-AE93
[[Continued on page 69943]]