Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

Federal RegisterJan 8, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER

Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

AGENCY:

Regulatory Information Service Center.

ACTION:

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

SUMMARY:

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual regulatory agendas in the

Federal Register

describing regulatory actions they are developing that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 602). Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and Office of Management and Budget memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish minimum standards for agencies' agendas, including specific types of information for each entry.

The

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

(Unified Agenda) helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of the Unified Agenda.

Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 were printed in their entirety in the

Federal Register

. Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for conveying regulatory agenda information to the maximum extent legally permissible. The complete 2012 Unified Agenda, which contains the regulatory agendas for 60 Federal agencies, is available to the public at

http://reginfo.gov

The 2012 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the

Federal Register

ADDRESSES:

Regulatory Information Service Center (MVC), General Services Administration, One Constitution Square, 1275 First Street NE., 630, Washington, DC 20417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry.

To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MVC), General Services Administration, One Constitution Square, 1275 First Street NE., 630, Washington, DC 20417, (202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:

RISC@gsa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction To The Unified Agenda Of Federal Regulatory And Deregulatory Actions

I. What Is the Unified Agenda?

The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared in the

Federal Register

each year since 1983 and has been available online since 1995. To further the objective of using modern technology to deliver better service to the American people for lower cost, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for conveying regulatory agenda information to the maximum extent legally permissible. The complete Unified Agenda is available to the public at

http://reginfo.gov.

The online Unified Agenda offers flexible search tools and access to the historic Unified Agenda database to 1995.

The 2012 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the

Federal Register

consists of agency regulatory flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Printed entries display only the fields required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Complete agenda information for those entries appears, in a uniform format, in the online Unified Agenda at

http://reginfo.gov

These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866, as well as move the Agenda process toward the goal of online availability, at a substantially reduced printing cost. The current online format does not reduce the amount of information available to the public. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory agendas from 60 Federal agencies. Agencies of the United States Congress are not included.

The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that appear in

The Regulatory Plan.

The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at

http://reginfo.gov

Department of Housing and Urban Development *

Department of Justice *

Department of State

Department of Veterans Affairs *

Agency for International Development

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

Corporation for National and Community Service

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *

Export-Import Bank of the United States

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Archives and Records Administration *

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Science Foundation

Office of Government Ethics

Office of Management and Budget

Office of Personnel Management *

Peace Corps

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation *

Railroad Retirement Board

Social Security Administration *

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Consumer Product Safety Commission *

Farm Credit Administration

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Housing Finance Agency

Federal Maritime Commission

Federal Trade Commission *

National Credit Union Administration

National Indian Gaming Commission *

National Labor Relations Board

Postal Regulatory Commission

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Surface Transportation Board

The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866. The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.

The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12

months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.

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

II. Why is the Unified Agenda published?

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Executive Order 12866

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

Executive Order 13132

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

Executive Order 13563

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

Executive Order 13211

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(Pub. L. 104-121, title II) established a procedure for congressional review of rules (5 U.S.C. 801

et seq.

), which defers, unless exempted, the effective date of a “major” rule for at least 60 days from the publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register

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

III. How is the Unified Agenda organized?

Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily edition of the

Federal Register

. A regulatory flexibility agenda is printed for each agency whose agenda includes entries for rules which are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or rules that have been selected for

periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Each printed agenda appears as a separate part. The parts are organized alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet departments; other executive agencies; the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a joint authority; and independent regulatory agencies. Agencies may in turn be divided into sub-agencies. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing information specific to that agency. Each printed agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's printed entries that follow.

The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.

Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:

Prerule Stage

—actions agencies will undertake to determine whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.

Proposed Rule Stage

—actions for which agencies plan to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the next step.

Final Rule Stage

—actions for which agencies plan to publish a final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as the next step.

Long-Term Actions

—items under development but for which the agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.

Completed Actions

—actions or reviews the agency has completed or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the Agenda.

Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on

http://reginfo.gov

to search for Completed and Long-Term Actions apart from each other and active RINs.

A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.

In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.

Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the

Federal Register Thesaurus of Indexing Terms

. In addition, online users have the option of searching Agenda text fields for words or phrases.

IV. What information appears for each entry?

All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:

Title of the Regulation

—a brief description of the subject of the regulation. In the printed edition, the notation “Section 610 Review” following the title indicates that the agency has selected the rule for its periodic review of existing rules under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610(c)). Some agencies have indicated completions of section 610 reviews or rulemaking actions resulting from completed section 610 reviews. In the online edition, these notations appear in a separate field.

Priority

—an indication of the significance of the regulation. Agencies assign each entry to one of the following five categories of significance.

(1) Economically Significant

As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The definition of an “economically significant” rule is similar but not identical to the definition of a “major” rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)

(2) Other Significant

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

(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant

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

(4) Routine and Frequent

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

(5) Informational/Administrative/Other

A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.

Major

—whether the rule is “major” under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121) because it has resulted or is likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will make the final determination as to whether a rule is major.

Unfunded Mandates

—whether the rule is covered by section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The Act requires that, before issuing an NPRM likely to result in a mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than $100 million in 1 year, agencies, other than independent regulatory agencies, shall prepare a written statement containing an assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

Legal Authority

—the section(s) of the United States Code (U.S.C.) or Public Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order (E.O.) that authorize(s) the regulatory action. Agencies may provide popular name references to laws in addition to these citations.

CFR Citation

—the section(s) of the Code of Federal Regulations that will be affected by the action.

Legal Deadline

—whether the action is subject to a statutory or judicial deadline, the date of that deadline, and whether the deadline pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other action.

Abstract

—a brief description of the problem the regulation will address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available, alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and potential costs and benefits of the action.

Timetable

—the dates and citations (if available) for all past steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the regulatory action. A date displayed in the form 12/00/12 means the agency is predicting the month and year the action will take place but not the day it will occur. In some instances, agencies may indicate what the next action will be, but the date of that action is “To Be Determined.” “Next Action Undetermined” indicates the agency does not know what action it will take next.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required

—whether an analysis is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.

) because the rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act.

Small Entities Affected

—the types of small entities (businesses, governmental jurisdictions, or organizations) on which the rulemaking action is likely to have an impact as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Some agencies have chosen to indicate likely effects on small entities even though they believe that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis will not be required.

Government Levels Affected

—whether the action is expected to affect levels of government and, if so, whether the governments are State, local, tribal, or Federal.

International Impacts

—whether the regulation is expected to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of interest to the Nation's international trading partners.

Federalism

—whether the action has “federalism implications” as defined in Executive Order 13132. This term refers to actions “that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Independent regulatory agencies are not required to supply this information.

Included in the Regulatory Plan

—whether the rulemaking was included in the agency's current regulatory plan published in fall 2011.

Agency Contact

—the name and phone number of at least one person in the agency who is knowledgeable about the rulemaking action. The agency may also provide the title, address, fax number, email address, and TDD for each agency contact.

Some agencies have provided the following optional information:

RIN Information URL

—the Internet address of a site that provides more information about the entry.

Public Comment URL

—the Internet address of a site that will accept public comments on the entry. Alternatively, timely public comments may be submitted at the Governmentwide e-rulemaking site,

http://www.regulations.gov

Additional Information

—any information an agency wishes to include that does not have a specific corresponding data element.

Compliance Cost to the Public

—the estimated gross compliance cost of the action.

Affected Sectors

—the industrial sectors that the action may most affect, either directly or indirectly. Affected sectors are identified by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.

Energy Effects

—an indication of whether the agency has prepared or plans to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for the action, as required by Executive Order 13211 “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” signed May 18, 2001 (66 FR 28355).

Related RINs

—one or more past or current RIN(s) associated with activity related to this action, such as merged RINs, split RINs, new activity for previously completed RINs, or duplicate RINs.

Some agencies that participated in the 2012 edition of

The Regulatory Plan

have chosen to include the following information for those entries that appeared in the Plan:

Statement of Need

—a description of the need for the regulatory action.

Summary of the Legal Basis

—a description of the legal basis for the action, including whether any aspect of the action is required by statute or court order.

Alternatives

—a description of the alternatives the agency has considered or will consider as required by section 4(c)(1)(B) of Executive Order 12866.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits

—a description of preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the action.

Risks

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

V. Abbreviations

The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:

ANPRM

—An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary notice, published in the

Federal Register

, announcing that an agency is considering a regulatory action. An agency may issue an ANPRM before it develops a detailed proposed rule. An ANPRM describes the general area that may be subject to regulation and usually asks for public comment on the issues and options being discussed. An ANPRM is issued only when an agency believes it needs to gather more information before proceeding to a notice of proposed rulemaking.

CFR

—The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual codification of the general and permanent regulations published in the

Federal Register

by the agencies of the Federal Government.

The Code is divided into 50 titles, each title covering a broad area subject to Federal regulation. The CFR is keyed to and kept up to date by the daily issues of the

Federal Register

—An Executive order is a directive from the President to Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority. Executive orders are published in the

Federal Register

and in title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

—The

Federal Register

is a daily Federal Government publication that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential documents, all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and other official documents issued by Federal agencies.

—The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.

NPRM

—A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the document an agency issues and publishes in the

Federal Register

that describes and solicits public comments on a proposed regulatory action. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), an NPRM must include, at a minimum:

• A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public rulemaking proceeding;

• A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and

• Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.

Pulic Law (or Pub. L.)

—A public law is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example, Pub. L. 112-4 is the fourth public law of the 112th Congress.

RFA

—A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is a description and analysis of the impact of a rule on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain small not-for-profit organizations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.

) requires each agency to prepare an initial RFA for public comment when it is required to publish an NPRM and to make available a final RFA when the final rule is published, unless the agency head certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

RIN

—The Regulation Identifier Number is assigned by the Regulatory Information Service Center to identify each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda, as directed by Executive Order 12866 (section 4(b)). Additionally, OMB has asked agencies to include RINs in the headings of their Rule and Proposed Rule documents when publishing them in the

Federal Register

, to make it easier for the public and agency officials to track the publication history of regulatory actions throughout their development.

Seq. No.

—The sequence number identifies the location of an entry in the printed edition of the Unified Agenda. Note that a specific regulatory action will have the same RIN throughout its development but will generally have different sequence numbers if it appears in different printed editions of the Unified Agenda. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda

U.S.C.

—The United States Code is a consolidation and codification of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The U.S.C. is divided into 50 titles, each title covering a broad area of Federal law.

VI. How can users get copies of the Agenda?

Copies of the

Federal Register

issue containing the printed edition of the Unified Agenda (agency regulatory flexibility agendas) are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Telephone: (202) 512-1800 or 1-866-512-1800 (toll-free).

Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please contact the particular agency for further information.

All editions of

The Regulatory Plan

and the

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at

http://reginfo.gov

, along with flexible search tools.

In accordance with regulations for the

Federal Register

, the Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the

Federal Register

. These documents are available at

http://www.fdsys.gov

Dated: December 21, 2012.

John C. Thomas,

Executive Director.

Introduction to the 2012 Regulatory Plan

Executive Order 12866, issued in 1993, requires the production of a Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. Executive Order 13563, issued in 2011, reaffirmed the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, we are providing the Unified Regulatory Agenda and the Regulatory Plan for public review. The Agenda and Plan are a preliminary statement of regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities under consideration. The Agenda and Plan may include rules that are not issued in the following year and some that might never be issued. Indeed, at this point, executive agencies have finalized only 43 out of the 132 economically significant active rulemakings listed in the Fall 2011 agenda. Continuing last year's practice, OMB took several steps to clarify the purposes and uses of the Agenda and Plan, including focusing the list of “active rulemakings” on rules that have at least some possibility of issuance over the next year. OMB also worked with agencies to make it easier to understand which rules are truly active rulemakings rather than long-term actions or completed actions.

We emphasize that rules listed on the agenda, designed among other things “to involve the public and its State, local, and tribal officials in regulatory planning,” must still undergo significant internal and external scrutiny before they are issued. No regulatory action can be made effective until it has gone through legally required processes, which generally include public review and comment. Any proposed or final action must also satisfy the requirements of relevant statutes, Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda. Those requirements, public comments, and new information may or may not lead an agency to go forward with an action that is currently under contemplation and that is included here. For example, the directives of Executive Order 13563, emphasizing the importance of careful consideration of costs and benefits, may lead an agency to decline to proceed with a previously contemplated regulatory action.

Whether a regulation is listed on the Agenda as “economically significant” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 (generally, having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more) is not an adequate measure of whether it imposes high costs on the private sector. Economically significant actions may impose small costs or even no costs. For example, regulations may count as economically significant not because they impose significant costs, but because they confer large benefits or remove significant burdens. Moreover, many regulations count as economically significant not because they impose significant regulatory costs on the private sector, but because they involve

transfer payments as required or authorized by law. As an example, the Department of Health and Human Services issues regulations on an annual basis, pursuant to statute, to govern how Medicare payments are increased each year. These regulations effectively authorize transfers of billions of dollars to hospitals and other health care providers each year.

The number of economically significant actions from Executive agencies listed as ”active rulemakings”—128—is lower than the corresponding figure for the last two editions of the Agenda, which contained 132 and 145 such rules, respectively. It is notable that the number of such rules has not grown even taking account of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act (Public Laws 111-148 and 111-152) and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203). Moreover, it is worth noting that a number of the rulemakings stay on the agenda from year to year; compared to the last Agenda, for example, this agenda adds only 12 new active economically significant non-recurring rules from Executive Agencies.

Also, the estimated net benefits of regulation have been remarkably high in this Administration; in total, net benefits over the first three fiscal years of this Administration were $91 billion.

Out of the last Agenda's 132 economically significant active rulemakings from Executive Agencies, agencies finalized 24 non-recurring rules as well as 19 rules that recur annually (and so appear in both the last Agenda and the current Agenda). Eight economically significant rules listed as long-term rulemakings in the last Agenda became active rulemakings in this Agenda, and 12 new active non-recurring rules were added to this Agenda—for a total of 128 economically significant active rulemakings from Executive Agencies in this Agenda.

With these notes and qualifications, the Regulatory Plan provides a list of important regulatory actions that are now under contemplation for issuance in proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year. In contrast, the Unified Agenda is a more inclusive list, including numerous ministerial actions and routine rulemakings, as well as long-term initiatives that agencies do not plan to complete in the coming year.

OMB hopes that the public examination of the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda will help ensure, in the words of Executive Order 13563, a regulatory system that protects “public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.”

Executive Order 13563 explicitly points to the need for predictability and for certainty, as well as for use of the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It indicates that agencies “must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative.” It explicitly draws attention to the need to measure and to improve “the actual results of regulatory requirements”—a clear reference to the importance of retrospective evaluation.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions in Executive Order 12866, which has long governed regulatory review. In addition, it endorses, and quotes, a number of provisions of Executive Order 12866 that specifically emphasize the importance of considering costs—including the requirement that to the extent permitted by law, agencies should not proceed in the absence of a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs. Importantly, Executive Order 13563 directs agencies “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” This direction reflects a strong emphasis on quantitative analysis as a means of improving regulatory choices and increasing transparency.

Among other things, Executive Order 13563 sets out five sets of requirements to guide regulatory decision making:

•

Public participation.

Agencies are directed to promote public participation, in part by making supporting documents available on Regulations.gov in order to promote transparency and public comment. Executive Order 13563 also directs agencies, where feasible and appropriate, to engage the public, including affected stakeholders, before rulemaking is initiated.

•

Integration and innovation.

Agencies are directed to attempt to reduce “redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping” requirements, in part by working with one another to simplify and harmonize rules. This important provision is designed to reduce confusion, redundancy, and excessive cost. An important goal of simplification and harmonization is to promote rather than to hamper innovation, which is a foundation of both growth and job creation. Different offices within the same agency might work together to harmonize their rules; different agencies might work together to achieve the same objective. Such steps can also promote predictability and certainty.

•

Flexible approaches.

Agencies are directed to identify and consider flexible approaches to regulatory problems, including warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements. Such approaches may “reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.” In certain settings, they may be far preferable to mandates and bans, precisely because they maintain freedom of choice and reduce costs. The reference to “appropriate default rules” signals the possibility that important social goals can be obtained through simplification—as, for example, in the form of automatic enrollment, direct certification, or reduced paperwork burdens.

•

Science.

Agencies are directed to promote scientific integrity, and in a way that ensures a clear separation between judgments of science and judgments of policy.

•

Retrospective analysis of existing rules.

Agencies are directed to produce preliminary plans to engage in retrospective analysis of existing significant regulations to determine whether they should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. Executive Order 13610,

Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,

issued in 2012, institutionalizes the “look back” mechanism set out in Executive Order 13563, by requiring agencies to report to OMB and the public twice each year (January and July) on the status of their retrospective review efforts, to “describe progress, anticipated accomplishments, and proposed timelines for relevant actions.” (See below for additional details on Executive Order 13610.)

Executive Order 13563 addresses both the “flow” of new regulations that are under development and the “stock” of existing regulations that are already in place. With respect to agencies' review of existing regulations, the Executive Order calls for careful reassessment, based on empirical analysis. It is understood that the prospective analysis required by Executive Order 13563 may depend on a degree of speculation and that the actual costs and benefits of a regulation may be lower or higher than what was anticipated when the rule was originally developed. It is also understood that circumstances may change in a way that requires reconsideration of regulatory requirements. After retrospective analysis has been undertaken, agencies will be in a position to reevaluate existing rules and to streamline, modify, or eliminate those that do not make sense in their current form.

In August 2011, over two dozen agencies released final plans to remove what the President called unjustified rules and “absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.” Over the next five years, billions of dollars in savings are anticipated from just a few initiatives

from the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency. And all in all, the plans' initiatives will save tens of millions of hours in annual paperwork burdens on individuals, businesses, and state and local governments.

The plans offer more than 500 proposals. Many of the proposals focus on small business. Some of the proposed initiatives represent a fundamental rethinking of how things have long been done—as, for example, with numerous efforts to move from paper to electronic reporting. For both private and public sectors, those efforts can save money.

Many of the reforms will have a significant impact. Recent plan updates include the following examples:

• The Treasury Department, along with the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection, issued a final rule in August 2012 eliminating the mailing of paper “courtesy” notices of liquidation, which provide informal, advanced notice of the liquidation date to the importers of record whose entry summaries are electronically filed. This effort to proceed only electronically streamlines the notification process and reduces printing and mailing costs.

• The Department of Transportation would allow combined drug and alcohol testing for operators conducting commercial air tours. This rulemaking would allow certificate holders to implement one drug and alcohol testing program for what had been considered to this point two separate employing entities. The intent is to decrease operating costs by eliminating duplicate programs while ensuring no loss in safety.

• The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) will be amended to implement policy guidance provided by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Memorandum M-12-16, dated July 11, 2012, Providing Prompt Payment to Small Business Subcontractors, to address the acceleration of payments to small business subcontractors.

The regulatory look back is not a one-time exercise. Regular reporting about recent progress and coming initiatives is required. The goal is to change the regulatory culture to ensure that rules on the books are reevaluated and are effective, cost-justified, and based on the best available science. By creating regulatory review teams at agencies, we will continue to examine what is working and what is not, and to eliminate unjustified and outdated regulations.

In addition to looking back at existing regulations, we are also focused on reducing unjustified reporting and paperwork burdens. In a June 22, 2012 Memorandum, “Reducing Reporting and Paperwork Burdens,” OIRA asked executive departments and agencies to implement Executive Order 13610,

Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,

by taking continuing steps to reassess regulatory requirements and, where appropriate, to streamline, improve, or eliminate those requirements. Agencies were asked to prioritize “initiatives that will produce significant quantifiable monetary savings

or significant quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens”

(emphasis added). Agencies were also asked to “give special consideration to initiatives that would reduce unjustified regulatory burdens or simplify or harmonize regulatory requirements imposed on small businesses.” In addition, Executive Order 13610 requires agencies to focus on “cumulative burdens” and to “give priority to reforms that would make significant progress in reducing those burdens.” Fundamentally, looking retrospectively to reduce existing burdens, while looking forward to ensure that future regulations are well-justified, will promote the nation's economic growth while continuing to protect the health and safety of the American people.

Agencies prioritized these reviews, including opportunities for measurable reductions in paperwork burdens, and are pursuing plans that include the following:

• The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is working to consolidate the application and renewal process for health benefits by eliminating the collection of financial information that is already collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA). In addition to the re-use of data, the VA expects to improve the application by making it more adaptive to data provided by respondents and the information needed to make a determination for benefits. VA expects veterans to save thousands of hours and the Federal government to save millions of dollars from this improved process.

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is progressing toward the implementation of an integrated agency-wide e-Grants online application that will be available to the public online. The system will simplify submission of grant program applications across FEMA by creating online forms. Fully integrating and automating these systems will improve efficiency and the effectiveness of FEMA operations to better serve the needs of internal and external stakeholders. Grantees are expected to save over 500,000 hours in paperwork burden per year.

OMB would also like to highlight Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” which was issued by President Obama in May 2012. The Executive Order emphasizes the importance of international regulatory cooperation as a key tool for eliminating unnecessary differences in regulation between the United States and its major trading partners which, in turn, supports economic growth, job creation, innovation, trade and investment, while also protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Among other things, the Executive Order provides that agencies that are required to submit a Regulatory Plan must “include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563” and Executive Order 13609. Further, the Executive Order requires agencies to “ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such” in the Agenda. Additionally, as part of the regulatory lookback initiative, Executive Order 13609 requires agencies to “consider reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners * * * when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary.”

OMB believes the implementation of Executive Order 13609 and 13610 will further strengthen the emphasis that Executive Order 13563 has placed on careful consideration of costs and benefits, public participation, integration and innovation, flexible approaches, and science. These requirements are meant to produce a regulatory system that draws on recent learning, that is driven by evidence, and that is suited to the distinctive circumstances of the twenty-first century.

Department of Agriculture

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

National Organic Program, Origin of Livestock, NOP-11-0009

0581-AD08

Proposed Rule Stage.

National Organic Program, Streamlining Enforcement Related Actions

0581-AD09

Proposed Rule Stage.

Plant Pest Regulations; Update of General Provisions

0579-AC98

Proposed Rule Stage.

Importation of Live Dogs

0579-AD23

Final Rule Stage.

Animal Disease Traceability

0579-AD24

Final Rule Stage.

Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores

0579-AD57

Final Rule Stage.

Child Nutrition Program Integrity

0584-AE08

Proposed Rule Stage.

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School, as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

0584-AE09

Proposed Rule Stage.

Child Nutrition Programs: Professional Standards for School Food Service and State Child Nutrition Program Directors as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

0584-AE19

Proposed Rule Stage.

SNAP: Immediate Payment Suspension for Fraudulent Retailer Activity

0584-AE22

Proposed Rule Stage.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages

0584-AD77

Final Rule Stage.

Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

0584-AD87

Final Rule Stage.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant

0584-AE07

Final Rule Stage.

Egg Products Inspection Regulations

0583-AC58

Proposed Rule Stage.

Product Labeling: Use of the Voluntary Claim “Natural” on the Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products

0583-AD30

Proposed Rule Stage.

Descriptive Designation for Needle or Blade Tenderized (Mechanically Tenderized) Beef Products

0583-AD45

Proposed Rule Stage.

Proposed Rule: Records to be Kept by Official Establishments and Retail Stores That Grind or Chop Raw Beef Products

0583-AD46

Proposed Rule Stage.

Prior Labeling Approval System: Generic Label Approval

0583-AC59

Final Rule Stage.

Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection

0583-AD32

Final Rule Stage.

Electronic Export Application and Certification as a Reimbursable Service and Flexibility in the Requirements for Official Export Inspection Marks, Devices, and Certificates

0583-AD41

Final Rule Stage.

Department of Defense

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Service Academies

0790-AI19

Final Rule Stage.

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures

0790-AI36

Final Rule Stage.

Operational Contract Support

0790-AI48

Final Rule Stage.

Voluntary Education Programs

0790-AI50

Final Rule Stage.

Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities

0790-AI60

Final Rule Stage.

Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process

0790-AI69

Final Rule Stage.

TRICARE; Reimbursement of Sole Community Hospitals

0720-AB41

Final Rule Stage.

Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); TRICARE Young Adult

0720-AB48

Final Rule Stage.

Department of Education

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Transitioning from the FFEL Program to the Direct Loan Program and Loan Rehabilitation under the FFEL, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan Programs

1840-AD12

Proposed Rule Stage.

Department of Energy

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

1904-AB86

Proposed Rule Stage.

Energy Efficiency Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

1904-AB57

Final Rule Stage.

Energy Efficiency Standards for Distribution Transformers

1904-AC04

Final Rule Stage.

Department of Health and Human Services

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals

0910-AG10

Proposed Rule Stage.

Produce Safety Regulation

0910-AG35

Proposed Rule Stage.

Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls

0910-AG36

Proposed Rule Stage.

Foreign Supplier Verification Program

0910-AG64

Proposed Rule Stage.

Accreditation of Third Parties To Conduct Food Safety Audits and for Other Related Purposes

0910-AG66

Proposed Rule Stage.

Revision of Postmarketing Reporting Requirements Discontinuance or Interruption in Supply of Certain Products (Drug Shortages)

0910-AG88

Proposed Rule Stage.

Unique Device Identification

0910-AG31

Final Rule Stage.

Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling for Food Sold in Vending Machines

0910-AG56

Final Rule Stage.

Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments

0910-AG57

Final Rule Stage.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation (CMS-9980-F)

0938-AR03

Proposed Rule Stage.

Part II—Regulatory Provisions To Promote Program Efficiency, Transparency, and Burden Reduction (CMS-3267-P)

0938-AR49

Proposed Rule Stage.

Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (CMS-9964-P)

0938-AR51

Proposed Rule Stage.

Changes to the Hospital Inpatient and Long-Term Care Prospective Payment System for FY 2014 (CMS-1599-P)

0938-AR53

Proposed Rule Stage.

Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System for CY 2014 (CMS-1601-P)

0938-AR54

Proposed Rule Stage.

Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Medicare Part B for CY 2014 (CMS-1600-P)

0938-AR56

Proposed Rule Stage.

Prospective Payment System for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) (CMS-1443-P)

0938-AR62

Proposed Rule Stage.

Child Care and Development Fund Reforms to Support Child Development and Working Families

0970-AC53

Proposed Rule Stage.

Department of Homeland Security

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Asylum and Withholding Definitions

1615-AA41

Proposed Rule Stage.

Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal

1615-AB89

Proposed Rule Stage.

Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses

1615-AB92

Proposed Rule Stage.

Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled H-1B1 and E-3 Nonimmigrants and EB-1 Immigrants

1615-AC00

Proposed Rule Stage.

New Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons; Eligibility for T Nonimmigrant Status

1615-AA59

Final Rule Stage.

Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status

1615-AA60

Final Rule Stage.

New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the U Nonimmigrant Status

1615-AA67

Final Rule Stage.

Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives

1615-AB99

Final Rule Stage.

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements

1625-AB21

Proposed Rule Stage.

Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978

1625-AA16

Final Rule Stage.

Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System

1625-AA99

Final Rule Stage.

Offshore Supply Vessels of at Least 6000 GT ITC

1625-AB62

Final Rule Stage.

Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) Program

1651-AA72

Final Rule Stage.

Security Training for Surface Mode Employees

1652-AA55

Proposed Rule Stage.

Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services

1652-AA61

Proposed Rule Stage.

Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology

1652-AA67

Proposed Rule Stage.

Aircraft Repair Station Security

1652-AA38

Final Rule Stage.

Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment and Study by F-2 and M-2 Nonimmigrants

1653-AA63

Proposed Rule Stage.

Standards To Prevent, Detect and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities

1653-AA65

Proposed Rule Stage.

Department of Justice

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and Title III of the ADA)

1190-AA59

Proposed Rule Stage.

Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)

1190-AA60

Proposed Rule Stage.

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Movie Captioning and Video Description

1190-AA63

Proposed Rule Stage.

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Governments

1190-AA65

Proposed Rule Stage.

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public Accommodations

1190-AA61

Long-Term Actions.

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels

3014-AA11

Proposed Rule Stage.

Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards

3014-AA37

Proposed Rule Stage.

Accessibility Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment

3014-AA40

Final Rule Stage.

Environmental Protection Agency

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals; Chemical Information Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(a) and Health and Safety Data Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(d)

2070-AJ93

Prerule Stage.

Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

2060-AP38

Proposed Rule Stage.

Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and NSPS

2060-AQ75

Proposed Rule Stage.

Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards

2060-AQ86

Proposed Rule Stage.

Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements

2060-AR34

Proposed Rule Stage.

Petroleum Refinery Sector Amendment for Flares

2060-AR69

Proposed Rule Stage.

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

2020-AA47

Proposed Rule Stage.

Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products

2070-AJ44

Proposed Rule Stage.

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products

2070-AJ92

Proposed Rule Stage.

Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Subpart J Product Schedule Listing Requirements

2050-AE87

Proposed Rule Stage.

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category

2040-AF14

Proposed Rule Stage.

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory Revisions

2040-AF15

Proposed Rule Stage.

Clean Water Protection Rule

2040-AF30

Proposed Rule Stage.

Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard for Electric Generating Units for New Sources

2060-AQ91

Final Rule Stage.

Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geological Sequestration Activities

2050-AG60

Final Rule Stage.

Rulemaking on the Definition of Solid Waste

2050-AG62

Final Rule Stage.

Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures

2040-AE95

Final Rule Stage.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

Revisions to Procedures for Complaints or Charges of Employment Discrimination Based on Disability Subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

3046-AA91

Proposed Rule Stage.

Revisions to Procedures for Complaints/Charges of Employment Discrimination Based on Disability Filed Against Employers Holding Government Contracts or Subcontracts

3046-AA92

Proposed Rule Stage.

Revisions to Procedures for Complaints of Employment Discrimination Filed Against Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance

3046-AA93

Proposed Rule Stage.

Revisions to the Federal Sector's Affirmative Employment Obligations of Individuals with Disabilities Under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended

3046-AA94

Proposed Rule Stage.

Small Business Administration

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

504 and 7(a) Regulatory Enhancements

3245-AG04

Proposed Rule Stage.

Small Business Jobs Act: Small Business Mentor-Protégé Programs

3245-AG24

Proposed Rule Stage.

100

Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Policy Directive

3245-AF45

Final Rule Stage.

101

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Policy Directive

3245-AF84

Final Rule Stage.

102

Acquisition Process: Task and Delivery Order Contracts, Bundling, Consolidation

3245-AG20

Final Rule Stage.

Social Security Administration

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

103

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Neurological Impairments (806P)

0960-AF35

Proposed Rule Stage.

104

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System Disorders (859P)

0960-AF58

Proposed Rule Stage.

105

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders (974P)

0960-AF88

Proposed Rule Stage.

106

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Genitourinary Disorders (3565P)

0960-AH03

Proposed Rule Stage.

107

Hearings by Video Teleconferencing (VTC) (3728P)

0960-AH37

Proposed Rule Stage.

108

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886F)

0960-AF69

Final Rule Stage.

109

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Congenital Disorders That Affect Multiple Body Systems (3566F)

0960-AH04

Final Rule Stage.

110

Amendments to Regulations Regarding Withdrawals of Applications and Voluntary Suspension of Benefits (3573F)

0960-AH07

Final Rule Stage.

111

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Visual Disorders (3696F)

0960-AH28

Final Rule Stage.

112

Amendments to the Rules on Determining Hearing Appearances and to the Rules on Objecting to the Time and Place of the Hearing (3401F)

0960-AH40

Final Rule Stage.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Sequence No.

Title

Regulation

Identifier No.

Rulemaking Stage

113

Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Amendments/Medical Event Definition [NRC-2008-0071]

3150-AI26

Proposed Rule Stage.

114

Fitness-for-Duty (HHS Requirements) [NRC-2009-0225]

3150-AI67

Proposed Rule Stage.

115

Disposal of Unique Waste Streams [NRC-2011-0012]

3150-AI92

Proposed Rule Stage.

116

Station Blackout Mitigation [NRC-2011-0299]

3150-AJ08

Proposed Rule Stage.

117

Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 2013 [NRC-2012-0211]

3150-AJ19

Proposed Rule Stage.

118

Physical Protection of Byproduct Material [NRC-2008-0120]

3150-AI12

Final Rule Stage.

119

Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant [NRC-2008-0608]

3150-AI42

Final Rule Stage.

120

Domestic Licensing of Source Material—Amendments/Integrated Safety Analysis [NRC-2009-0079]

3150-AI50

Final Rule Stage.

121

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks—Transnuclear, Inc., Standardized NUHOMS□ System, Revision 11 [NRC-2012-0020]

3150-AJ10

Final Rule Stage.

122

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks—Holtec International, HI-STORM 100, Revision 9 [NRC-2012-0052]

3150-AJ12

Final Rule Stage.

BILLING CODE 6820-27-P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

In FY 2013, USDA's focus will continue to be on programs that create/save jobs, particularly in rural America, while identifying and taking action on those programs that could be modified, streamlined, and simplified; or reporting burdens reduced, particularly with the public's access to USDA programs. The 2008 Farm Bill covering major farm, trade, conservation, rural development, nutrition assistance and other programs expired at the end of fiscal year 2012 and is expected to be reauthorized in 2013. It is anticipated that a number of high priority regulations will be developed during 2013 to implement this legislation should it be enacted. USDA's regulatory efforts in the coming year will achieve the Department's goals identified in the Department's Strategic Plan for 2010-2015.

•

Assist rural communities to create prosperity so they are self-sustaining, re-populating, and economically thriving.

USDA is the leading advocate for rural America. The Department supports rural communities and enhances quality of life for rural residents by improving their economic opportunities, community infrastructure, environmental health, and the sustainability of agricultural production. The common goal is to help create thriving rural communities with good jobs where people want to live and raise families, and where children have economic opportunities and a bright future.

•

Ensure that all of America's children have access to safe, nutritious, and balanced meals.

A plentiful supply of safe and nutritious food is essential to the well-being of every family and the healthy development of every child in America. USDA provides nutrition assistance to children and low-income people who need it; and works to improve the healthy eating habits of all Americans, especially children. In addition, the Department safeguards the quality and wholesomeness of meat, poultry, and egg products; and addresses and prevents loss or damage from pests and disease outbreaks.

•

Ensure our national forests and private working lands are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources.

America's prosperity is inextricably linked to the health of our lands and natural resources. Forests, farms, ranches, and grasslands offer enormous environmental benefits as a source of clean air, clean and abundant water, and wildlife habitat. These lands generate economic value by supporting the vital agriculture and forestry sectors, attracting tourism and recreational visitors, sustaining green jobs, and producing ecosystem services, food, fiber, timber and non-timber products. They are also of immense social importance, enhancing rural quality of life, sustaining scenic and culturally important landscapes, and providing opportunities to engage in outdoor activity and reconnect with the land.

•

Help America promote agricultural production and biotechnology exports as America works to increase food security.

A productive agricultural sector is critical to increasing global food security. For many crops, a substantial portion of domestic production is bound for overseas markets. USDA helps American farmers and ranchers use efficient, sustainable production, biotechnology, and other emergent technologies to enhance food security around the world and find export markets for their products.

Important regulatory activities supporting the accomplishment of these goals in 2013 will include the following:

•

Improving Access to Nutrition Assistance and Dietary Behaviors.

As changes are made to the nutrition assistance programs, USDA will work to ensure access to program benefits, improve program integrity, improve diets and healthy eating, and promote physical activity consistent with the national effort to reduce obesity. In support of these activities in 2013, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) plans to publish the proposed rule regarding the nutrition standards for foods sold in schools outside of the reimbursable meal programs; finalize a rule updating the WIC food packages, and establish permanent rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. FNS will continue to work to implement rules that minimize participant and vendor fraud in its nutrition assistance programs.

•

Strengthening Food Safety Inspection.

USDA will continue to develop science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products in the least burdensome and most cost-effective manner. Regulations will be revised to address emerging food safety challenges, streamlined to remove excessively prescriptive regulations, and updated to be made consistent with hazard analysis and critical control point principles. In 2013, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) plans to finalize regulations to establish new systems for poultry slaughter inspection, which would save money for establishments and taxpayers while improving food safety. Among other actions, USDA will provide export certificates through the use of technology, and define conditions under which the “natural” claim may be used on meat and poultry labeling. To assist small entities to comply with food safety requirements, FSIS will continue to collaborate with other USDA agencies and State partners in its small business outreach program.

•

Forestry and Conservation.

USDA plans to finalize regulations that would streamline the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) financial assistance programs, which would make program participation easier for producers. USDA will update its EQIP participation requirements to allow limited resource producers with incomplete irrigation histories to participate in the program. Additionally, USDA will allow NRCS' State Conservationists to remove undue burdens on producers that have acted in good faith on incorrect program information provided by NRCS. USDA will also publish proposed Agency guidance for implementation of the Forest Service's 2012 Planning Rule. This guidance will provide the detailed monitoring, assessing, and documenting requirements that National Forests require to begin revising their land management plans under the 2012 Planning Rule (currently 70 of the 120 Forest Service's Land Management Plans are expired and in need of revision).

•

Making Marketing and Regulatory Programs More Effective.

USDA will continue to protect the health and value of U.S. agricultural and natural resources. USDA plans to continue work on implementing a national animal disease traceability system and anticipates revising the permitting of plant pests and biological control organisms. A national, effective animal disease traceability system will enhance our ability to respond to animal disease detections. Revising the plant pests and biological control organisms' regulations on permitting would facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current regulations. For the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), USDA plans to finalize specific standards for the humane care of dogs imported for resale and the definition of a retail pet store. USDA will support the organic sector by updating the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances as advised by the National Organic Standards Board, streamlining organic regulatory enforcement actions, developing organic pet food standards, and proposing that all existing and replacement dairy animals from which milk or milk products are intended to be sold as organic must be managed organically from the last third of gestation.

•

Promoting Biobased Products.

USDA will continue to promote sustainable economic opportunities to create jobs in rural communities through the purchase and use of biobased products through the BioPreferred® program. USDA will continue to designate groups of biobased products to receive procurement preference from Federal agencies and contractors. BioPreferred® has made serious efforts to minimize burdens on small business by providing a standard mechanism for product testing, an online application process, and individual assistance for small manufacturers when needed. The Federal preferred procurement and the certified label parts of the program are voluntary; both are designed to assist

biobased businesses in securing additional sales.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plan can be found at

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_OPEN.

RIN

Title

Significantly Reduce Burdens on Small Businesses

0583-AC59

Prior Labeling Approval System: Generic Label Approval

Yes.

0583-AD41

Electronic Export Application and Certification Fee

Yes.

0583-AD39

Electronic Import Inspection and Certification of Imported Products and Foreign Establishments

Yes.

0583-AD32

Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection

Yes.

0570-AA76

Rural Energy America Program

Yes.

0575-AC91

Community Facilities Loan and Grants

Yes.

0596-AD01

National Environmental Policy Act Efficiencies

Yes.

0570-AA85

Business and Industry Loan Guaranteed Program

Yes.

Subsequent to EO 13563, and consistent with its goals as well as the importance of public participation, President Obama issued EO 13610 on Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens in May 2012. EO 13610 directs agencies, in part, to give priority consideration to those initiatives that will produce costs savings or significant reductions in paperwork burdens. Accordingly, reducing the regulatory burden on the American people and our trading partners is a priority for USDA and we will continually work to improve the effectiveness of our existing regulations. As a result of our ongoing regulatory review and burden reduction efforts, USDA will make regulatory changes in 2013, including the following:

•

Increase Use of Generic Approval and Regulations Consolidation.

FSIS is finalizing a rule that will expand the circumstances in which the labels of meat and poultry products will be deemed to be generically approved by FSIS. The rule will reduce regulatory burden and generate taxpayer savings of $2.9 million over 10 years.

•

Implement Electronic Export Application for Meat and Poultry Products.

FSIS is finalizing a rule to provide exporters a fee-based option for transmitting U.S. certifications to foreign importers and governments electronically. Automating the export application and certification process will facilitate the export of U.S. meat, poultry, and egg products by streamlining the processes that are used while ensuring that foreign regulatory requirements are met.

•

Simplify FSA NEPA Compliance.

FSA will revise its regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to update, improve, and clarify requirements. It will also remove obsolete provisions. Annual cost savings to FSA as a result of this rule could be $345,000 from conducting 314 fewer environmental assessments per year, while retaining strong environmental protection.

•

Streamline Forest Service NEPA Compliance.

The Forest Service (FS), in cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), is promulgating rulemaking to establish three new Categorical Exclusions for simple restoration activities. These Categorical Exclusions will improve and streamline the NEPA process, and reduce the paperwork burden, as it applies to FS projects without reducing environmental protection.

•

Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).

Under REAP, Rural Development provides guaranteed loans and grants to support the purchase, construction, or retrofitting of a renewable energy system. This rulemaking will streamline the process for grants, lessening the burden to the customer. It will also make the guaranteed loan portion of the rule consistent with other programs RD manages. The rulemaking is expected to reduce the information collection burden.

•

Reduced Duplication in Farm Programs.

The Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services (FFAS) mission area will reduce the paperwork burden on program participants by consolidating the information collections required to participate in farm programs administered by FSA and the Federal crop insurance program administered by the Risk Management Agency (RMA). As a result, producers will be able to spend less time reporting information to USDA. Additionally, FSA and RMA will be better able to share information, thus improving operational efficiency. FFAS will evaluate methods to simplify and standardize, to the extent practical, acreage reporting processes, program dates, and data definitions across the various USDA programs and agencies. FFAS expects to allow producers to use information from their farm-management and precision agriculture systems for reporting production, planted and harvested acreage, and other key information needed to participate in USDA programs. FFAS will also streamline the collection of producer information by FSA and RMA with the agricultural production information collected by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. These process changes will allow for program data that is common across agencies to be collected once and utilized or redistributed to agency programs in which the producer chooses to participate. Full implementation of the Acreage and Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative (ACRSI) is planned for 2013. When specific changes are identified, FSA and RMA will make any required conforming changes in their respective regulations.

•

Increased Use of Electronic Forms.

Increasingly, USDA is providing electronic alternatives to its traditionally paper-based customer transactions. As a result, customers increasingly have the option to electronically file forms and other documentation online, allowing them to choose when and where to conduct business with USDA. For example, Rural Development continues to review its regulations to determine which application procedures for Business

Programs, Community Facilities Programs, Energy Programs, and Water and Environmental Programs, can be streamlined and its requirements synchronized. RD is approaching the exercise from the perspective of the people it serves, by communicating with stakeholders on two common areas of regulation that can provide the basis of reform. The first area provides support for entrepreneurship and business innovation. This initiative would provide for the streamlining and reformulating of the Business & Industry Loan Guarantee Program and the Intermediary Relending Program; the first such overhauls in over 20 years. The second area would provide for streamlining programs being made available to municipalities, Indian tribes, and non-profit organizations, specifically Water and Waste Disposal; Community Facilities; and Rural Business Enterprise Grants plus programs such as Electric and Telecommunications loans that provide basic community needs. This regulatory reform initiative has the potential to significantly reduce the burden to respondents (lenders and borrowers). To the extent practicable, each reform initiative will consist of a common application and uniform documentation requirements making it easier for constituent groups to apply for multiple programs. In addition, there will be associated regulations for each program that will contain program specific information.

Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation Under EO 13609

President Obama issued EO 13609 on promoting international regulatory cooperation in May 2012. The EO charges the Regulatory Working Group, an interagency working group chaired by the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), with examining appropriate strategies and best practices for international regulatory cooperation. The EO also directs agencies to identify factors that should be taken into account when evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory approaches used by trading partners with whom the U.S. is engaged in regulatory cooperation. At this time, USDA is identifying international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, while working closely with the Administration to refine the guidelines implementing the EO. Apart from international regulatory cooperation, the Department has continued to identify regulations with international impacts, as it has done in the past. Such regulations are those that are expected to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of interest to our international trading partners. For example, FSIS is working with Canada's Treasury Board and Canadian Food Inspection Agency to facilitate the movement of meat, poultry, and egg products between the U.S. and Canada while still ensuring food safety. The effort may lead to a future proposed rule to revise FSIS's regulations regarding the importation of these products.

Major Regulatory Priorities

This following represents summary information on prospective priority regulations as called for in EO's 12866 and 13563:

Food and Nutrition Service

Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence.

Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's 2013 regulatory plan supports USDA's Strategic Goal to “ensure that all of America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals,” and its two related objectives:

• Increase Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents FNS's efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to program benefits (food consumed at home, school meals, commodities) and distributing State administrative funds to support program operations. To advance this objective, FNS plans to publish a final rule from the 2008 Farm Bill addressing SNAP eligibility, certification, and employment and training issues. This rule also responds to the principles outlined in EO 13563 and responds to EO 13610 by eliminating the requirement for face-to-face interviews in the SNAP certification process, eliminating substantial burdens for SNAP clients and providing additional flexibility to State agencies that administer the program.

• Improve Program Integrity. FNS also plans to publish a number of rules to increase the efficiency and reduce the burden of program operations. Program integrity provisions will continue to be strengthened in the SNAP and Child Nutrition programs to ensure Federal taxpayer dollars are spent effectively.

• Promote Healthy Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors. This objective represents FNS's efforts to ensure that program benefits meet appropriate standards to effectively improve nutrition for program participants, to improve the diets of its clients through nutrition education, and to support the national effort to reduce obesity by promoting healthy eating and physical activity. In support of this objective, FNS plans to publish a proposed rule implementing Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act provisions setting nutrition standards for all foods sold in school, establishing professional standards for school food service and State child nutrition program directors, and establishing requirements for the SNAP Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program; and finalizing a rule updating food packages in WIC. FNS' goal is by 2015 to reduce child obesity from 16.9 percent to 15.5 percent, to double the proportion of adults consuming five or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily, and to increase breastfeeding rates.

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Mission: FSIS is responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products in interstate and foreign commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.

Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-based regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products are wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS regulatory actions support the objective to protect public health by ensuring that food is safe under USDA's goal to ensure access to safe food. To reduce the number of foodborne illnesses and increase program efficiencies, FSIS will continue to review its existing authorities and regulations to ensure that it can address emerging food safety challenges, to streamline excessively prescriptive regulations, and to revise or remove regulations that are inconsistent with the FSIS' hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) regulations. FSIS is also working with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to improve coordination and increase the effectiveness of inspection activities. FSIS's priority initiatives are as follows:

• Poultry Slaughter Modernization. FSIS plans to issue a final rule to implement a new inspection system for young poultry slaughter establishments that would facilitate public health-based inspection. The rule would allow for more effective inspection of carcasses and allocation of agency resources, as well as encourage industry to more readily use new technology. It would

save money for businesses and taxpayers while improving food safety.

• “Natural” Claim. FSIS will propose to amend the meat and poultry products regulations to define the conditions under which the voluntary claim “natural” may be used on meat and poultry product labeling. Requests for a “natural” label approval would need to include documentation to demonstrate that the products meet the criteria to bear the claim. A codified “natural” claim definition will reduce uncertainty about which products qualify for the label and will increase consumer confidence in the claim.

• Public Health Information System. To support its food safety inspection activities, FSIS is continuing to implement the Public Health Information System (PHIS), a user-friendly and Web-based system that automates many of the Agency's business processes. PHIS also enables greater exchange of information between FSIS and other Federal agencies, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, involved in tracking cross-border movement of import and export shipments of meat, poultry, and processed egg products. To facilitate the implementation of some PHIS components, FSIS has proposed to provide for electronic export application and certification processes and will propose similar import processes as alternatives to current paper-based systems.

Retrospective Review of Regulations. FSIS will continue to review its regulations to determine how to improve information collection procedures and the quality and sufficiency of data available to support regulatory decision making, and how to decrease the recordkeeping burden on the industry.

In addition to the planned amendments to provide for electronic import and export application and certification, mentioned above, and in response to comments received on the request for information preparatory to the Department's regulatory review plan, FSIS is developing a final rule that will reduce regulatory burden by expanding the circumstances in which the labels of meat and poultry products will be deemed to be generically approved by FSIS.

• FSIS Small Business Implications. The great majority of businesses regulated by FSIS are small businesses. FSIS conducts a small business outreach program that provides critical training, access to food safety experts, and information resources, such as compliance guidance and questions and answers on various topics, in forms that are uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent. FSIS collaborates in this effort with other USDA agencies and cooperating State partners. For example, FSIS makes plant owners and operators aware of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural Business and Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their facilities. FSIS employees will meet with small and very small plant operators to learn more about their specific needs and explore how FSIS can tailor regulations to better meet the needs of small and very small establishments, while maintaining the highest level of food safety.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Mission: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is a multi-faceted Agency with a broad mission area that includes protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health, regulating genetically engineered organisms, administering the AWA and carrying out wildlife damage management activities.

Priorities: With regard to plant and animal health, APHIS is committed to developing and issuing science-based regulations intended to protect the health and value of American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS conducts programs to prevent the introduction of exotic pests and diseases into the United States and conducts surveillance, monitoring, control, and eradication programs for pests and diseases in this country. These activities enhance agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contribute to the national economy and the public health. APHIS also conducts programs to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals under the AWA. APHIS priority issues are as follows:

• Animal Disease Traceability. APHIS is continuing work to implement a robust national animal disease traceability system. This rulemaking would amend the regulations to establish minimum national official identification and documentation requirements for the traceability of livestock moving interstate. Continuing this work is expected to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found.

• Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). APHIS is continuing work to revise its regulations concerning BSE to provide a more comprehensive and universally applicable framework for the importation of certain animals and products. APHIS believes that this work will continue to guard against the introduction of BSE into the United States.

• Update of Plant Pest Regulations. APHIS proposes to regulate the movement of not only plant pests, but also biological control organisms and associated articles. APHIS proposes risk-based criteria regarding the movement of biological control organisms, and proposes to establish regulations to allow the movement in interstate commerce of certain types of plant pests when appropriate. APHIS also proposes to revise regulations regarding the movement of soil and to establish regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in which plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are held. This proposal would also clarify the factors that would be considered when assessing the risks associated with the movement of certain organisms. Finally, this proposal is expected to facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner that protects U.S. agriculture and address gaps in the current regulations.

• Retail Pet Stores. APHIS is continuing work to revise the definition of retail pet store and related regulations to bring more pet animals sold at retail under the protection of the AWA.

Agricultural Marketing Service

Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides marketing services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers, exporters, and consumers of food products. AMS also manages the government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading, maintains food quality standards, supervises the Federal research and promotion programs, and oversees the country of origin labeling program as well as the National Organic Program (NOP).

Priorities: AMS priority items for next year include rulemaking that affects the organic industry. These are:

• National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List). The agency will continue to follow the requirements of the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 by publishing rules to amend the National List based upon recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and publish a rule to address substances due to sunset from the National List in 2013.

• Streamline Enforcement Actions for NOP. AMS would propose a regulation streamlining enforcement actions, by shortening the process by which AMS may initiate formal administrative proceedings for proposed suspensions or revocations of accreditation or certification.

• Organic Pet Food Standards. AMS would propose standards for organic pet food following recommendations of the NOSB.

• Organic Dairy Animals. AMS would propose a rule on the replacement of dairy animals which is intended to level the playing field by instituting the same requirements across all organic dairy producers, regardless of how they transitioned to organic production.

Farm Service Agency

Mission: FSA's mission is to deliver timely, effective programs and services to America's farmers and ranchers to support them in sustaining our Nation's vibrant agricultural economy, as well as to provide first-rate support for domestic and international food aid efforts. FSA supports USDA's strategic goals by stabilizing farm income, providing credit to new or existing farmers and ranchers who are temporarily unable to obtain credit from commercial sources, and helping farm operations recover from the effects of disaster. FSA administers several conservation programs directed toward agricultural producers. The largest program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which protects up to 32 million acres of environmentally sensitive land.

Priorities: FSA is focused on providing the best possible service to producers while protecting the environment by updating and streamlining environmental compliance and further strengthening Farm Loan Programs. Changes in the loan programs will better assist small farmers and socially disadvantaged farmers and will make loan servicing more efficient. FSA is also strengthening its ability to help the Nation respond to national defense emergencies. FSA's priority initiatives are as follows:

• Microloan Programs. FSA will implement a Microloan Program, which will help small and family operations progress through their start-up years with needed resources, while building capacity, increasing equity, and eventually graduating to commercial credit. The Microloan Program will improve the FSA Operating Loan Program to better meet the needs of small farmers. In addition, FSA will develop and issue regulations to amend programs for farm operating loans, down payment loans, and emergency loans to include socially disadvantaged farmers, increase loan limits, loan size, funding targets, interest rates, and graduating borrowers to commercial credit. In addition, FSA will further streamline normal loan servicing activities and reduce burden on borrowers while still protecting the loan security.

• Environmental Compliance (National Environmental Policy Act). FSA will revise its regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act. The changes improve the efficiency, transparency, and consistency of NEPA implementation. Changes include aligning the regulations to NEPA regulations and guidance from the President's Council on Environmental Quality; providing a single set of regulations that reflect the agency's current structure; clarifying the types of actions that require an Environmental Assessment (EA); and adding to the list of actions that are categorically excluded from further environmental review because they have no significant effect on the human environment.

• Agriculture Priorities and Allocations Systems (APAS). USDA was directed to develop APAS as part of a suite of rules that are being modeled after the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS). Under APAS, USDA would secure food and agriculture-related resources as part of preparing for, and responding to, national defense emergencies by placing priorities on orders or by using resource allocation authority. APAS is authorized by the Defense Production Act Reauthorization Act of 2009 (DPA). The authorities under DPA have already been implemented by the Department of Commerce (DOC) via memoranda of understanding with other Departments. The suite of DPA rules relieves DOC from implementation responsibility for items outside their jurisdiction and places these responsibilities with the relevant Departments.

Forest Service

Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, productivity, and diversity of the Nation's forests and rangelands to meet the needs of present and future generations. This includes protecting and managing National Forest System lands, providing technical and financial assistance to States, communities, and private forest landowners, plus developing and providing scientific and technical assistance, and the exchange of scientific information to support international forest and range conservation. Forest Service regulatory priorities support the accomplishment of the Department's goal to ensure our National forests are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources.

Priorities: FS is committed to developing and issuing science-based regulations intended to ensure public participation in the management of our Nation's National Forest, while also moving forward the FS' ability to plan and conduct restoration projects on National Forest System lands. FS will continue to review its existing authorities and regulations to ensure that it can address emerging challenges, to streamline excessively burdensome business practices, and to revise or remove regulations that are inconsistent with the USDA's vision for restoring the health and function of the lands it is charged with managing. FS' priority initiatives are as follows:

• Land Management Planning Rule Policy. The Forest Service promulgated a new Land Management Planning rule in April 2012. This rule streamlined the Forest Service's paperwork requirements but expanded the public participation requirements for revising National Forest's Land Management Plans. Having promulgated the 2012 Planning Rule, the Agency is planning to publish for comment the follow-up internal guidance on how to implement the new planning rule. These directives, once finalized, will enable National Forests to begin revising their management plans under the new rule.

• Ecological Restoration Policy. This policy would recognize the adaptive capacity of ecosystems, and includes the role of natural disturbances and uncertainty related to climate and other environmental change. The need for ecological restoration of National Forest System (NFS) lands is widely recognized, and the Forest Service has conducted restoration-related activities across many programs for decades. “Restoration” is a common way of describing much of the agency's work and the concept is threaded throughout existing authorities, program directives, and collaborative efforts such as the National Fire Plan 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. However, the agency did not have a definition of restoration established in policy. That was identified as a barrier to collaborating with the public and partners to plan and accomplish restoration work.

Rural Development

Mission: Rural Development (RD) promotes a dynamic business environment in rural America that creates jobs, community infrastructure, and housing opportunities in partnership with the private sector and community-based organizations by

providing financial assistance and business planning services, and supporting projects that create or preserve quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment, while focusing on the development of single and multi-family housing and community infrastructure. RD financial resources are often leveraged with those of other public and private credit source lenders to meet business and credit needs in under-served areas. Recipients of these programs may include individuals, corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit corporations, Indian tribes, and private companies.

Priorities: RD regulatory priorities will facilitate sustainable renewable energy development and enhance the opportunities necessary for rural families to thrive economically. RD's rules will minimize program complexity and the related burden on the public while enhancing program delivery and RBS oversight.

• Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program. RD will enhance current operations of the B&I program, streamline existing practices, and minimize program complexity and the related burden on the public.

• Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). REAP will be revised to ensure a larger number of applicants will be made available by issuing smaller grants. By doing so, funding will be distributed evenly across the applicant pool and encourage greater development of renewable energy.

• Broadband Loans. RD will finalize the interim rule that implemented provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill that made credit more accessible for broadband providers serving rural areas. The key provisions of the regulation include modifications to rural areas, financial coverage ratios, defining broadband speed and the publication of an annual notice.

Departmental Management

Mission: Departmental Management's mission is to provide management leadership to ensure that USDA administrative programs, policies, advice and counsel meet the needs of USDA programs, consistent with laws and mandates, and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers.

Priorities

• USDA Procurement Reform: Department Management would incorporate in all moderate to large USDA contracts a new clause requiring the contractor to certify compliance with three specific labor laws, and to notify the contracting officer if it becomes aware of a violation of one of these laws. This would mitigate the risk of potentially awarding contracts to non-responsible entities and ensure that compliance with labor laws is factored into contracting decisions.

• BioPreferred® Program: In support of the Department's goal to increase prosperity in rural areas, USDA's Departmental Management will finalize regulations to revise the BioPreferred® program guidelines to continue adding designated product categories to the preferred procurement program, including intermediates and feedstocks and finished products made of intermediates and feedstocks.

Aggregate Costs and Benefits

USDA will ensure that its regulations provide benefits that exceed costs, but are unable to provide an estimate of the aggregated impacts of its regulations. Problems with aggregation arise due to differing baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and the type of regulatory costs and benefits considered. Some benefits and costs associated with rules listed in the regulatory plan cannot currently be quantified as the rules are still being formulated. For 2013, USDA's focus will be to implement the changes to programs in such a way as to provide benefits while minimizing program complexity and regulatory burden for program participants.

USDA—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)

1. National Organic Program, Origin of Livestock, NOP-11-0009

Proposed Rule Stage

Priority:

Other Significant.

Legal Authority:

7 U.S.C. 6501

CFR Citation:

7 CFR part 205.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

The current regulations provide two tracks for replacing dairy animals which are tied to how dairy farmers transition to organic production. Farmers who transition an entire distinct herd must thereafter replace dairy animals with livestock that has been under organic management from the last third of gestation. Farmers who do not transition an entire distinct herd may perpetually obtain replacement animals that have been managed organically for 12 months prior to marketing milk or milk products as organic. The proposed action would eliminate the two track system and require that upon transition, all existing and replacement dairy animals from which milk or milk products are intended to be sold, labeled or represented as organic, must be managed organically from the last third of gestation.

Statement of Need:

This action is being taken because of concerns raised by various parties, including the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), about the dual tracks for dairy replacement animals. The organic community argues that the “two track system” encourages producers to sell their organic young stock and replace them with animals converted from conventional production. The organic community points out that with this continual state of transitioning, animals treated with and fed prohibited substances, prior to conversion, are constantly entering organic agriculture. Some producers have taken this route because it is cheaper and easier to convert or purchase converted animals than to raise organic young stock. As a result, this continual state of transition has discouraged development of a viable organic market for young dairy stock. The organic community has expressed that this is contrary to the intent of organic and the expectations of organic dairy product consumers. These concerns are ultimately rooted in a discrepancy between the regulatory intent and interpretation whereby some organic dairy producers are required to manage/obtain animals that have been raised organically since the last third of gestation, while other producers may continually obtain replacement animals from conventional production, which have been managed organically for 12 months. The proposed action would level the playing field by instituting the same requirements across all producers, regardless of their transition approach.

Summary of Legal Basis:

The National Organic Program regulations stipulate the requirements for dairy replacement animals in section 205.236(a)(2) Origin of Livestock. In addition, in response to the final ruling in the 2005 case, Harvey v. Johanns, the USDA committed to rulemaking to address the concerns about dairy replacement animals.

Alternatives:

The program considered initiating the rulemaking with an ANPR. It was determined that there is sufficient awareness of the expectations of the organic community to proceed with a proposed rule. As alternatives, we considered the status quo, however, this would continue the disparity between producers who can continually transition conventional dairy animals into organic production and producers who must source dairy animals that are organic from the last third of gestation. Based on the information available, this

disparity appears to create a barrier to the development of an organic heifer market. We also considered an action that would restrict the source of breeder stock and movement of breeder stock after they are brought onto an organic operation, however, this would minimize the flexibility of producers to purchase breeder stock from any source as specified under the Organic Foods Production Act.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

Organic producers who routinely convert conventional dairy livestock to organic will either need to find a source to procure organic replacement animals, or begin to raise replacement animals within their operation. The costs associated with compliance have not been quantified, however, the comments to the proposed rule will provide a basis for those estimates. Organic operations that converted a whole-herd to organic status and do not convert conventional animals for replacements will be able to readily comply with the rule and may find new market opportunities for organic replacement dairy livestock.

Risks:

Continuation of the two-track system jeopardizes the viability of the market for organic heifers. A potential risk associated with the rulemaking would be a temporary supply shortage of dairy replacement animals due to the increased demand.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

06/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

No.

Government Levels Affected:

None.

Agency Contact:

Melissa R Bailey, Director, Standards Division, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th & Independence Avenue SW., Rm. 2646-South Building, Washington, DC 20250,

Phone:

202 720-3252,

Fax:

202 205-7808,

Email:

melissa.bailey@usda.gov.

RIN:

0581-AD08

USDA—AMS

2. National Organic Program, Streamlining Enforcement Related Actions

Priority:

Other Significant.

Legal Authority:

7 U.S.C. 6501

CFR Citation:

7 CFR part 205.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This rulemaking would amend sections of the NOP regulations which pertain to the adverse action appeals process. It would require the Agency to initiate formal administrative proceedings for proposed suspensions or revocations of accreditation or certification issued by the NOP. Under the current NOP regulations, a formal administrative proceeding is initiated following the decision of the Administrator to deny an appeal. This rulemaking would omit the step of appealing to the Administrator when NOP has initiated the adverse action. This action also would amend the NOP regulations to require appellants who want to further contest a decision of the Administrator to deny an appeal to request a hearing. Under the current regulations, the formal administrative proceeding is initiated by default upon issuance of the Administrator's denial.

Also, this rulemaking would add clarifying language concerning mediation and stipulations entered into by the NOP, as well as correct the address to which appeals are submitted.

Statement of Need:

The March 2010 Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit of the NOP, raised issues related to the program's progress for imposing enforcement actions. One concern was that organic producers and handlers facing revocation or suspension of their certification are able to market their products as organic during what can be a lengthy appeals process. As a result, AMS expects to publish a proposed rule in FY2013 to revise language in section 205.681 of the NOP regulations, which pertains to adverse action appeals. It is expected that this rule will streamline the NOP appeals process such that appeals are reviewed and responded to in a more timely manner.

Summary of Legal Basis:

The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. section 6501

et seq.,

requires that the Secretary establish an expedited administrative appeals procedure for appealing an action of the Secretary or certifying agent (section 6520). The NOP regulations describe how appeals of proposed adverse action concerning certification and accreditation are initiated and further contested (sections 205.680, 205.681).

Alternatives:

The program considered maintaining the status quo and hiring additional support for the NOP Appeals Team. This rulemaking was determined to be preferable because it will reduce redundancy in the appeals process, where an appellant can more quickly appeal the Administrator's decision to an Administrative Law Judge.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This action will affect certified operations and accredited certifying agents. The primary impact is expected to be expedited enforcement action, which may benefit the organic community through deterrence and increase consumer confidence in the organic label. It is not expected to have a significant cost burden upon affected entities beyond any monetary penalty or suspension or revocation of certification or accreditation, to which these entities are already subject to under current regulations.

RISKS:

None have been identified.

Risks:

None.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

06/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

No.

Government Levels Affected:

None.

Agency Contact:

Melissa R Bailey, Director, Standards Division, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th & Independence Avenue SW., Rm. 2646-South Building, Washington, DC 20250,

Phone:

202 720-3252,

Fax:

202 205-7808,

Email:

melissa.bailey@usda.gov.

RIN:

0581-AD09

USDA—ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)

Proposed Rule Stage

3. Plant Pest Regulations; Update of General Provisions

Priority:

Other Significant.

Legal Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450; 7 U.S.C. 2260; 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 7 U.S.C. 8301 to 8817; 19 U.S.C. 136; 21 U.S.C. 111; 21 U.S.C. 114a; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332

CFR Citation:

7 CFR parts 318 and 319; 7 CFR part 330; 7 CFR part 352.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

We are proposing to revise our regulations regarding the movement of plant pests. We are proposing to regulate the movement of not only plant pests, but also biological control organisms and associated articles. We are proposing risk-based criteria regarding the movement of biological control organisms, and are proposing to establish regulations to allow the movement in interstate commerce of certain types of plant pests without restriction by granting exceptions from permitting requirements for those pests. We are also proposing to revise our regulations regarding the movement of soil and to establish regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in which plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are held. This proposed rule replaces a previously published proposed rule,

which we are withdrawing as part of this document. This proposal would clarify the factors that would be considered when assessing the risks associated with the movement of certain organisms, facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current regulations.

Statement of Need:

APHIS is preparing a proposed rule to revise its regulations regarding the movement of plant pests. The revised regulations would address the importation and interstate movement of plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles, and the release into the environment of biological control organisms. The revision would also address the movement of soil and establish regulations governing the biocontainment facilities in which plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles are held. This proposal would clarify the factors that would be considered when assessing the risks associated with the movement of certain organisms, facilitate the movement of regulated organisms and articles in a manner that also protects U.S. agriculture, and address gaps in the current regulations.

Summary of Legal Basis:

Under section 411(a) of the Plant Protection Act (PPA), no person shall import, enter, export, or move in interstate commerce any plant pest, unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is authorized under a general or specific permit and in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may issue to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United States.

Under section 412 of the PPA, the Secretary may restrict the importation or movement in interstate commerce of biological control organisms by requiring the organisms to be accompanied by a permit authorizing such movement and by subjecting the organisms to quarantine conditions or other remedial measures deemed necessary to prevent the spread of plant pests or noxious weeds. That same section of the PPA also gives the Secretary explicit authority to regulate the movement of associated articles.

Alternatives:

The alternatives we considered were taking no action at this time or implementing a comprehensive risk reduction plan. This latter alternative would be characterized as a broad risk mitigation strategy that could involve various options such as increased inspection, regulations specific to a certain organism or group of related organisms, or extensive biocontainment requirements.

We decided against the first alternative because leaving the regulations unchanged would not address the needs identified immediately above. We decided against the latter alternative, because available scientific information, personnel, and resources suggest that it would be impracticable at this time.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

To be determined.

Risks:

Unless we issue such a proposal, the regulations will not provide a clear protocol for obtaining permits that authorize the movement and environmental release of biological control organisms. This, in turn, could impede research to explore biological control options for various plant pests and noxious weeds known to exist within the United States, and could indirectly lead to the further dissemination of such pests and weeds.

Moreover, unless we revise the soil regulations, certain provisions in the regulations will not adequately address the risk to plants, plant parts, and plant products within the United States that such soil might present.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

10/20/09

74 FR 53673

Notice Comment Period End

11/19/09

NPRM

04/00/13

NPRM Comment Period End

06/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

Yes.

Small Entities Affected:

Businesses, Organizations.

Government Levels Affected:

Local, State, Tribal.

International Impacts:

This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.

Additional Information:

Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov

Agency Contact:

Shirley Wager-Page, Chief, Pest Permitting Branch, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 131, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, Phone: 301 851-2323.

RIN:

0579-AC98

USDA—APHIS

Final Rule Stage

4. Importation of Live Dogs

Priority:

Other Significant.

Legal Authority:

7 U.S.C. 2148.

CFR Citation:

9 CFR parts 1 and 2.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

We are amending the regulations to implement an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 added a new section to the AWA to restrict the importation of certain live dogs. Consistent with this amendment, this rule prohibits the importation of dogs, with limited exceptions, from any part of the world into the continental United States or Hawaii for purposes of resale, research, or veterinary treatment, unless the dogs are in good health, have received all necessary vaccinations, and are at least 6 months of age. This action is necessary to implement the amendment to the AWA and will help to ensure the welfare of imported dogs.

Statement of Need:

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture promulgate regulations to implement and enforce new provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regarding the importation of dogs for resale. In line with the changes to the AWA, APHIS intends to amend the regulations in 9 CFR parts 1 and 2 to regulate the importation of dogs for resale.

Summary of Legal Basis:

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, signed into law on June 18, 2008) added a new section to the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2147) to restrict the importation of live dogs for resale. As amended, the AWA now prohibits the importation of dogs into the United States for resale unless the Secretary of Agriculture determines that the dogs are in good health, have received all necessary vaccinations, and are at least 6 months of age. Exceptions are provided for dogs imported for research purposes or veterinary treatment. An exception to the 6-month age requirement is also provided for dogs that are lawfully imported into Hawaii for resale purposes from the British Isles, Australia, Guam, or New Zealand in compliance with the applicable regulations of Hawaii, provided the dogs are vaccinated, are in good health, and are not transported out of Hawaii for resale purposes at less than 6 months of age.

Alternatives:

To be identified.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

To be determined.

Risks:

Not applicable.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

09/01/11

76 FR 54392

NPRM Comment Period End

10/31/11

Final Rule

04/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

Undetermined.

Government Levels Affected:

None.

Additional Information:

Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov

Agency Contact:

Gerald Rushin, Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231,

Phone:

301 851-3735.

RIN:

0579-AD23

USDA—APHIS

5. Animal Disease Traceability

Priority:

Other Significant.

Legal Authority:

7 U.S.C. 8305

CFR Citation:

9 CFR part 86.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This rulemaking will amend the regulations to establish minimum national official identification and documentation requirements for the traceability of livestock moving interstate. The purpose of this rulemaking is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found.

Statement of Need:

Preventing and controlling animal disease is the cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers and farmers work hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods, there is never a guarantee that their animals will be spared from disease. To support their efforts, USDA has enacted regulations to prevent, control, and eradicate disease, and to increase foreign and domestic confidence in the safety of animals and animal products. Traceability helps give that reassurance. Traceability does not prevent disease, but knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they have been, and when, is indispensable in emergency response and in ongoing disease programs. The primary objective of these proposed regulations is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found in a manner that continues to ensure the smooth flow of livestock in interstate commerce.

Summary of Legal Basis:

Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301

et seq.

), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the interstate movement of any animal to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock, and may carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or eradicate any pest or disease of livestock. The Secretary may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the Act.

Alternatives:

As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal health, APHIS initiated implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. More recently, the Agency launched an effort to assess the level of acceptance of NAIS through meetings with the Secretary, listening sessions in 14 cities, and public comments. Although there was some support for NAIS, the vast majority of participants were highly critical of the program and of USDA's implementation efforts. The feedback revealed that NAIS has become a barrier to achieving meaningful animal disease traceability in the United States in partnership with America's producers.

The option we are proposing pertains strictly to interstate movement and gives States and tribes the flexibility to identify and implement the traceability approaches that work best for them.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

A workable and effective animal traceability system would enhance animal health programs, leading to more secure market access and other societal gains. Traceability can reduce the cost of disease outbreaks, minimizing losses to producers and industries by enabling current and previous locations of potentially exposed animals to be readily identified. Trade benefits can include increased competitiveness in global markets generally, and when outbreaks do occur, the mitigation of export market losses through regionalization. Markets benefit through more efficient and timely epidemiological investigation of animal health issues.

Other societal benefits include improved animal welfare during natural disasters.

The main economic effect of the rule is expected to be on the beef and cattle industry. For other species such as horses and other equine species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids, APHIS would largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of existing disease program regulations.

Costs of an animal traceability system would include those for tags and interstate certificates of veterinary inspection (ICVIs) or other movement documentation, for animals moved interstate. Incremental costs incurred are expected to vary depending upon a number of factors, including whether an enterprise does or does not already use eartags to identify individual cattle. For many operators, costs of official animal identification and ICVIs would be similar, respectively, to costs associated with current animal identification practices and the in-shipment documentation currently required by individual States. To the extent that official animal identification and ICVIs would simply replace current requirements, the incremental costs of the rule for private enterprises would be minimal.

Risks:

This rulemaking is being undertaken to address the animal health risks posed by gaps in the existing regulations concerning identification of livestock being moved interstate. The current lack of a comprehensive animal traceability program is impairing our ability to trace animals that may be infected with disease.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

08/11/11

76 FR 50082

NPRM Comment Period End

11/09/11

Final Rule

12/00/12

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

Yes.

Small Entities Affected:

Businesses.

Government Levels Affected:

State, Tribal.

Federalism:

This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.

Additional Information:

Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov

Agency Contact:

Neil Hammerschmidt, Program Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231,

Phone:

301 851-3539.

RIN:

0579-AD24

USDA—APHIS

6. Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores

Priority:

Other Significant.

Legal Authority:

7 U.S.C. 2131 to 2159

CFR Citation:

9 CFR parts 1 and 2.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This rulemaking will revise the definition of retail pet store and related regulations to bring more pet

animals sold at retail under the protection of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Retail pet stores are not required to be licensed and inspected under the AWA. This rulemaking is necessary to ensure that animals sold at retail are monitored for their health and humane treatment.

Statement of Need:

“Retail pet stores” are not required to obtain a license under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) or comply with the AWA regulations and standards. Currently, anyone selling, at retail, the following animals for use as pets are considered retail pet stores: Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and cold-blooded species. This rulemaking would rescind the “retail pet store” status of anyone selling, at retail for use as pets, those types of animals to buyers who do not physically enter his or her place of business or residence in order to personally observe the animals available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase. Unless otherwise exempt under the regulations, these entities would be required to obtain a license from APHIS and would become subject to the AWA regulations and standards.

Summary of Legal Basis:

Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131

et seq.

), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate handlers. The Secretary has delegated responsibility for administering the AWA to the Administrator of APHIS.

Alternatives:

We recognize that retailers who sell some animals to walk-in customers and some animals remotely may be subject to a certain degree of oversight by the customers who enter their place of business or residence. As a result, we considered establishing a regulatory threshold based on the percentage of such a retailer's remote sales. A second alternative we considered in preparing the proposed rule was to add an exception from licensing for retailers that are subject to oversight by State or local agencies or by breed and registry organizations that enforce standards of welfare comparable to those standards established under the AWA. A third alternative we considered during the development of the proposed rule was to amend the definition of retail pet store so that only high-volume breeders would be subject to the AWA regulations and standards. We determined, however, that the proposed action would be preferable to these alternatives.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

Although we have attempted to estimate the impact of the proposed rule, we did not initially have enough information to fully assess it, particularly information on the number of entities that may be affected or breadth of operational changes that may result. In the proposed rule, we encouraged public comment on the number of entities that may be affected and the degree to which operations would be altered to comply with the rule. We believe that the benefits of the rule—primarily enhanced animal welfare—would justify the costs. The rule would help ensure that animals sold at retail, but lacking public oversight receive humane handling, care and treatment in keeping with the requirements of the AWA. It would also address the competitive disadvantage of retail breeders who adhere to the AWA regulations, when compared to those retailers who do not operate their facilities according to AWA standards and may therefore bear lower costs. These benefits are not quantified.

Risks:

Not applicable.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

05/16/12

77 FR 28799

NPRM Comment Period End

07/16/12

NPRM Comment Period Extended

07/16/12

77 FR 41716

NPRM Comment Period End

08/15/12

Final Rule

02/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

Undetermined.

Government Levels Affected:

None.

Additional Information:

Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov

Agency Contact:

Gerald Rushin, Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231,

Phone:

301 851-3735.

RIN:

0579-AD57

USDA—FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)

Proposed Rule Stage

7. Child Nutrition Program Integrity

Priority:

Other Significant.

Unfunded Mandates:

Undetermined.

Legal Authority:

Pub. L. 111-296

CFR Citation:

Not Yet Determined.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This rule proposes to codify three provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (the Act). Section 303 of the Act requires the Secretary to establish criteria for imposing fines against schools, school food authorities, or State agencies that fail to correct severe mismanagement of the program, fail to correct repeat violations of program requirements, or disregard a program requirement of which they had been informed. Section 322 of the Act requires the Secretary to establish procedures for the termination and disqualification of organizations participating in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). Section 362 of the Act requires that any school, institution, service institution, facility, or individual that has been terminated from any program authorized under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, and appears on either the SFSP or the Child and Adult Care Food Program's (CACFP's) disqualified list, may not be approved to participate in or administer any other programs authorized under those two Acts.

Statement of Need:

There are currently no regulations imposing fines on schools, school food authorities or State agencies for program violations and mismanagement. This rule will (1) establish criteria for imposing fines against schools, school food authorities or State agencies that fail to correct severe mismanagement of the program or repeated violations of program requirements; (2) establish procedures for the termination and disqualification of organizations participating in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP); and (3) require that any school, institutions, or individual that has been terminated from any Federal Child Nutrition Program and appears on either the SFSP or the Child and Adult Care Food Program's (CACFP's) disqualified list may not be approved to participate in or administer any other Child Nutrition Program.

Summary of Legal Basis:

This rule codifies Sections 303, 322, and 362 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).

Alternatives:

None identified; this rule implements statutory requirements.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

This rule is expected to help promote program integrity in all of the child nutrition programs. FNS anticipates that these provisions will have no significant costs and no major increase in regulatory burden to States.

Risks:

None identified.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

04/00/13

NPRM Comment Period End

06/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

Undetermined.

Government Levels Affected:

Undetermined.

Federalism:

Undetermined.

Agency Contact:

James F Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,

Phone:

703 305-2572,

Email:

james.herbert@fns.usda.gov.

RIN:

0584-AE08

USDA—FNS

8. National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School, as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

Priority:

Economically Significant.

Unfunded Mandates:

Undetermined.

Legal Authority:

Pub. L. 111-296

CFR Citation:

7 CFR part 210; 7 CFR part 220.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This proposed rule would codify the two provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220.

Section 203 requires schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to make available to children free of charge, as nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place where meals are served during meal service.

Section 208 requires the Secretary to promulgate proposed regulations to establish science-based nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools not later than December 13, 2011. The nutrition standards would apply to all food sold outside the school meal programs, on the school campus, and at any time during the school day.

Statement of Need:

This proposed rule would codify the following provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) as appropriate, under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220.

Summary of Legal Basis:

There is no existing regulatory requirement to make water available where meals are served. Regulations at 7 CFR parts 210.11 direct State agencies and school food authorities to establish regulations necessary to control the sale of foods in competition with lunches served under the NSLP, and prohibit the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in the food service areas during the lunch periods. The sale of other competitive foods may, at the discretion of the State agency and school food authority, be allowed in the food service area during the lunch period only if all income from the sale of such foods accrues to the benefit of the nonprofit school food service or the school or student organizations approved by the school. State agencies and school food authorities may impose additional restrictions on the sale of and income from all foods sold at any time throughout schools participating in the Program.

Alternatives:

None.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and Budgetary Effects Statement: The Congressional Budget Office determined these provisions would incur no Federal costs.

Expected Benefits of the Proposed Action

The provisions in this proposed rulemaking would result in better nutrition for all school children.

Risks:

None known.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

04/00/13

NPRM Comment Period End

06/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

Yes.

Small Entities Affected:

Governmental Jurisdictions.

Government Levels Affected:

Local, State.

Agency Contact:

James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,

Phone:

703 305-2572,

Email:

james.herbert@fns.usda.gov.

RIN:

0584-AE09

USDA—FNS

9. Child Nutrition Programs: Professional Standards for School Food Service and State Child Nutrition Program Directors as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

Priority:

Other Significant.

Unfunded Mandates:

Undetermined.

Legal Authority:

Pub. L. 111-296

CFR Citation:

7 CFR part 210; 7 CFR part 220.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This proposed rule would codify section 306 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 which requires the Secretary to establish a program of required education, training, and certification for all school food service directors responsible for the management of a school food authority; and criteria and standards for States to use in the selection of State agency directors with responsibility for the school lunch program and the school breakfast program.

Statement of Need:

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 requires USDA to establish a program of required education, training, and certification for all school food service directors responsible for the management of a school food authority, as well as criteria and standards for States to use in the selection of State agency directors with responsibility for the school lunch program and the school breakfast program. The Act also requires each State to provide at least annual training in administrative practices to local education agency and school food service personnel.

Summary of Legal Basis:

This proposed rule would codify section 306 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).

Alternatives:

Because this proposed rule is under development, alternatives are not yet articulated.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

This rule is expected to establish consistent required education and professional standards for school food service and state agency directors; and education, training and certification of food service personnel. Consistent standards should help strengthen program integrity and quality. The Act provides a small amount ($5 million in the first year, $1 million annually thereafter) to establish and manage the training and certification programs. USDA

anticipates that the rule will have no significant cost and no major increase in regulatory burden to States.

Risks:

None identified.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

03/00/13

NPRM Comment Period End

05/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

No.

Small Entities Affected:

No.

Government Levels Affected:

Local, State.

Agency Contact:

James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,

Phone:

703 305-2572,

Email:

james.herbert@fns.usda.gov.

RIN:

0584-AE19

USDA—FNS

10. SNAP: Immediate Payment Suspension for Fraudulent Retailer Activity

Priority:

Other Significant.

Unfunded Mandates:

Undetermined.

Legal Authority:

Pub. L. 111-246

CFR Citation:

Not Yet Determined.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This rule proposes to implement part of section 4132 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) by authorizing the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to suspend the payment of redeemed program benefits to a suspected retail food store or wholesale food concern pending administrative action to disqualify the firm.

Statement of Need:

Under current rules, some firms authorized to redeem SNAP benefits conduct substantial trafficking or other fraudulent SNAP activity in a short period of time, flee with the fraudulently-obtained funds, and ultimately appreciate large profits from this before USDA is able to complete a formal investigation. The ability to withhold some revenues from such violators would depreciate their profits and may discourage this illegal activity.

Summary of Legal Basis:

This rule codifies part of section 4132 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246).

Alternatives:

Because this proposed rule is under development, alternatives are not yet articulated.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

This rule will improve SNAP integrity by allowing USDA to take appropriate action against retailers who commit fraud. The Department does not anticipate that this provision will have a significant cost impact.

Risks:

Suspension of funds for firms suspected of flagrant program violations runs a small risk that firms that are ultimately found not to have trafficked will temporarily lose the use of these funds. USDA anticipates that this provision will only affect a small subset of firms charged with trafficking, and that the small risk of inappropriate suspensions far outweighs the much larger risk of permitting a firm to profit from trafficking in SNAP benefits while a decision is made on its case.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

12/00/12

NPRM Comment Period End

02/00/13

Final Action

07/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

Undetermined.

Government Levels Affected:

Undetermined.

Federalism:

Undetermined.

Agency Contact:

James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,

Phone:

703 305-2572,

Email:

james.herbert@fns.usda.gov.

RIN:

0584-AE22

USDA—FNS

Final Rule Stage

11. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages

Priority:

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

Legal Authority:

42 U.S.C. 1786

CFR Citation:

7 CFR part 246.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This final rule will affirm and address comments from stakeholders on an interim final rule that went into effect October 1, 2009, governing WIC food packages to align them more closely with updated nutrition science.

Statement of Need:

As the population served by WIC has grown and become more diverse over the past 20 years, the nutritional risks faced by participants have changed, and though nutrition science has advanced, the WIC supplemental food packages remained largely unchanged until FY 2010. This rule is needed to respond to comments and experience, and to implement recommended changes to the WIC food packages based on the current nutritional needs of WIC participants and advances in nutrition science.

Summary of Legal Basis:

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, enacted on June 30, 2004, requires the Department to issue a final rule within 18 months of receiving the Institute of Medicine's report on revisions to the WIC food packages. This report was published and released to the public on April 27, 2005.

Alternatives:

FNS developed a regulatory impact analysis that addressed a variety of alternatives that were considered in the interim final rulemaking. The regulatory impact analysis was published as an appendix to the interim rule.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

The regulatory impact analysis for this rule provided a reasonable estimate of the anticipated effects of the rule. This analysis estimated that the provisions of the rule would have a minimal impact on the costs of overall operations of the WIC Program over 5 years. The regulatory impact analysis was published as an appendix to the interim rule.

Risks:

This rule applies to WIC State agencies with respect to their selection of foods to be included on their food lists. As a result, vendors will be indirectly affected and the food industry will realize increased sales of some foods and decreases in other foods, with an overall neutral effect on sales nationally. The rule may have an indirect economic affect on certain small businesses because they may have to carry a larger variety of certain foods to be eligible for authorization as a WIC vendor. With the high degree of State flexibility allowable under this final rule, small vendors will be impacted differently in each State depending upon how that State chooses to meet the new requirements. It is, therefore, not feasible to accurately estimate the rule's impact on small vendors. Since neither FNS nor the State agencies regulate food producers under the WIC Program, it is not known how many small entities within that industry may be indirectly affected by the rule. FNS has, however, modified the new food provision in an effort to mitigate the impact on small entities. This rule adds new food items, such as fruits and vegetables and whole grain breads, which may require some WIC vendors, particularly smaller stores, to expand the types and quantities of food items stocked in order

to maintain their WIC authorization. In addition, vendors also have to make available more than one food type from each WIC food category, except for the categories of peanut butter and eggs, which may be a change for some vendors. To mitigate the impact of the fruit and vegetable requirement, the rule allows canned, frozen, and dried fruits and vegetables to be substituted for fresh produce. Opportunities for training on and discussion of the revised WIC food packages will be offered to State agencies and other entities as necessary.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

08/07/06

71 FR 44784

NPRM Comment Period End

11/06/06

Interim Final Rule

12/06/07

72 FR 68966

Interim Final Rule Effective

02/04/08

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End

02/01/10

Final Action

04/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

No.

Small Entities Affected:

Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.

Government Levels Affected:

Federal, Local, State, Tribal.

URL For More Information: www.fns.usda.gov/wic.

URL For Public Comments: www.fns.usda.gov/wic.

Agency Contact:

James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,

Phone:

703 305-2572,

Email:

james.herbert@fns.usda.gov.

RIN:

0584-AD77

USDA—FNS

12. Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

Priority:

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

Legal Authority:

Pub. L. 110-246; Pub. L. 104-121

CFR Citation:

7 CFR part 273.

Legal Deadline:

None.

Abstract:

This final rule amends the regulations governing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement provisions from the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment and training.

Statement of Need:

This rule amends the regulations governing SNAP to implement provisions from the FCEA concerning the eligibility and certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment and training. In addition, this rule revises the SNAP regulations throughout 7 CFR part 273 to change the program name from the Food Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes as mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these provisions was October 1, 2008. FNS is also implementing two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State agencies options that are currently available only through waivers. These provisions allow State agencies to average student work hours and to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews. FNS anticipates that this rule will impact the associated paperwork burdens.

Summary of Legal Basis:

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246).

Alternatives:

Most aspects of the rule are non-discretionary and tied to explicit, specific requirements for SNAP in the FCEA. However, FNS did consider alternatives in implementing section 4103 of the FCEA, Elimination of Dependent Care Deduction Caps. FNS considered whether to limit deductible expenses to costs paid directly to the care provider or whether to permit households to deduct other expenses associated with dependent care in addition to the direct costs. FNS chose to allow households to deduct the cost of transportation to and from the dependent care provider and the cost of separately identified activity fees that are associated with dependent care. Section 4103 signaled an important shift in congressional recognition that dependent care costs constitute major expenses for working households. In addition, it was noted during the floor discussion in both houses of Congress prior to passage of the FCEA that some States already counted transportation costs as part of dependent care expenditures.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:

The estimated total SNAP costs to the Government of the FCEA provisions implemented in the rule are estimated to be $831 million in FY 2010 and $5.619 billion over the 5 years FY 2010 through FY 2014. These impacts are already incorporated into the President's budget baseline.

There are many potential societal benefits of this rule. Some provisions may make some households newly eligible for SNAP benefits. Other provisions may increase SNAP benefits for certain households. Certain provisions in the rule will reduce the administrative burden for households and State agencies.

Risks:

The statutory changes and discretionary ones under consideration would streamline program operations. The changes are expected to reduce the risk of inefficient operations.

Timetable:

Action

Date

FR Cite

NPRM

05/04/11

76 FR 25414

NPRM Comment Period End

07/05/11

Final Rule

06/00/13

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

No.

Government Levels Affected:

Local, State.

Agency Contact:

James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 10th Floor, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,

Phone:

703 305-2572,

Email:

james.herbert@fns.usda.gov.

RIN:

0584-AD87

USDA—FNS

13. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant

Priority:

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

Legal Authority:

Pub. L. 111-296

CFR Citation:

7 CFR part 272.

Legal Deadline:

Final, Statutory, January 1, 2012, Public Law 111-296.

A legal deadline of 01/01/2012 was placed on this action by Public Law 111-296.

Abstract:

Section 241 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to authorize grants to States for a nutrition education and obesity prevention program that promotes healthy food choices consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Statement of Need:

The Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program rule amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to replace the current nutrition education program under the Act with a program providing grants to States for the implementation of a nutrition education and obesity prevention program that promotes healthy food choices consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This rule will implement all requirements of the law. It makes

eligible for program participation: (1) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants; (2) participants in the school lunch or breakfast programs; and (3) individuals who reside in low-income communities or are low-income individuals. The rule continues commitment to serving low-income populations while focusing on the issue of obesity, a priority of this Administration. It ensures that interventions implemented as part of State nutrition education plans recognize the constrained resources of the eligible population.

The rule requi

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.