DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 248/Friday, December 27, 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 248/Friday, December 27, 2019 71714 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION procedures for the review and clearance Department’s rulemaking process can be of guidance documents; and (3) a found at 49 CFR 5.5. Office of the Secretary General Counsel memorandum, This final rule reflects the existing ‘‘Procedural Requirements for DOT role of the Department’s Regulatory 14 CFR Parts 11, 300, and 302 Enforcement Actions’’ (February 15, Reform Task Force in the development 2019),3 which clarifies the procedural of the Department’s regulatory portfolio 49 CFR Parts 1, 5, 7, 106, 211, 389, 553, requirements governing enforcement and ongoing review of regulations. and 601 actions initiated by the Department, Established in response to Executive including administrative enforcement Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory RIN 2105–AE84 proceedings and judicial enforcement Reform Agenda’’ (February 24, 2017), Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, actions brought in Federal court. the Regulatory Reform Task Force is the and Enforcement Procedures This final rule removes the existing Department’s internal body, chaired by procedures on rulemaking, which are the Regulatory Reform Officer, tasked AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of outdated and inconsistent with current with evaluating proposed and existing Transportation (OST), U.S. Department departmental practice, and replaces regulations and making of Transportation (DOT). them with a comprehensive set of recommendations to the Secretary of ACTION: Final rule. procedures that will increase Transportation regarding their transparency, provide for more robust promulgation, repeal, replacement, or SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth a public participation, and strengthen the modification, consistent with applicable comprehensive revision and update of overall quality and fairness of the law. This final rule outlines the the Department’s regulations on Department’s administrative actions. structure, membership, and rulemaking procedures and consolidates This final rule also responds to a responsibilities of the Regulatory all of the Department’s existing December 20, 2018, petition for Reform Task Force at 49 CFR 5.9. administrative procedures in one rulemaking that we received from the This final rule also prescribes the location. This final rule also New Civil Liberties Alliance that asked procedures the Department must follow incorporates and reflects the the Department to promulgate for all stages of the rulemaking process, Department’s current policies and regulations prohibiting departmental including the initiation of new procedures relating to the issuance of components from issuing, relying on, or rulemakings, the development of rulemaking documents. In addition, this defending improper agency guidance. economic analyses, the contents of update codifies the Department’s rulemaking documents, their review and internal procedural requirements Rulemaking Procedures clearance, and the opportunity for fair governing the review and clearance of This final rule incorporates into the and sufficient public participation. The guidance documents and the initiation Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR final rule also reflects the Department’s and conduct of enforcement actions, part 5, subpart B, the policies and existing policies regarding contacts with including administrative enforcement procedures found in DOT Order 2100.6, outside parties during the rulemaking proceedings and judicial enforcement titled: ‘‘Policies and Procedures for process as well as the ongoing review of actions brought in Federal court. Rulemakings.’’ All citations to OST or existing regulations. These policies and procedures can be found at 49 CFR 5.11, DATES: Effective on January 27, 2020. OA regulations in this preamble refer to 5.13, and 5.19. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill sections of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended by this final Consistent with the Department’s Laptosky, Office of Regulation, Office of regulatory philosophy that rules the General Counsel, 202–493–0308, rule. The procedures contained in this final imposing the greatest costs on the [email protected]. rule apply to all phases of the public should be subject to heightened SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final Department’s rulemaking process, from procedural requirements, this final rule rule substantially incorporates three advance notices of proposed also incorporates the Department’s internal administrative procedure rulemakings to the promulgation of final enhanced procedures for economically directives of the U.S. Department of rules, including substantive rules, rules significant and high-impact Transportation (the Department or DOT) of interpretation, and rules prescribing rulemakings. Economically significant into one place in the Code of Federal agency procedures and practice rulemakings are defined as those rules that would result in a total annualized Regulations (CFR) at 49 CFR part 5: (1) requirements applicable to outside cost on the U.S. economy of $100 DOT Order 2100.6, ‘‘Policies and parties. The final rule outlines the million or more, or a total net loss of at Procedures for Rulemakings’’ (December Department’s regulatory policies, such 1 least 75,000 full-time jobs in the United 20, 2018), which sets forth updated as ensuring that there are no more States over 5 years. 49 CFR 5.17(a)(1). policies and procedures governing the regulations than necessary, that where High-impact rulemakings would result development and issuance of they impose burdens, regulations are in a total annualized cost on the U.S. regulations by the Department’s narrowly tailored to address identified economy of $500 million or more, or a operating administrations and market failures or statutory mandates, total net loss of at least 250,000 full-time components of the Office of the and that they specify performance jobs in the United States over 5 years. Secretary; (2) a General Counsel objectives when appropriate. These and 49 CFR 5.17(a)(2). These costly memorandum, ‘‘Review and Clearance other policies applicable to the of Guidance Documents’’ (December 20, rulemakings may be subject to enhanced 2 rulemaking procedures, such as advance 2018), which establishes enhanced at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/2018- guidance-memorandum. notices of proposed rulemakings and 1 See U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT 3 See U.S. Department of Transportation, formal hearings. The procedures for Order 2100.6, ‘‘Policies and Procedures for ‘‘Procedural Requirements for DOT Enforcement economically significant and high- Rulemakings,’’ available at https:// Actions,’’ available at https:// impact rulemakings are provided at 49 www.transportation.gov/regulations/2018-dot- www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/ rulemaking-order. mission/administrations/office-general-counsel/ CFR 5.17. 2 See U.S. Department of Transportation, ‘‘Review 331596/c1-mem-enforcement-actions-signed- While much of part 5 is outdated in and Clearance of Guidance Documents,’’ available 21519.pdf. light of the Department’s new VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:44 Dec 26, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER4.SGM 27DER4 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 71715 procedures, this final rule will retain part 5, subpart C, the policies and appropriate and practicable. The final and revise some procedures. The procedures found in the General rule also provides a process for Department’s existing procedures for the Counsel’s memorandum, titled: ‘‘Review interested parties to petition the filing of rulemaking petitions will be and Clearance of Guidance Documents.’’ Department for the withdrawal or retained (see 49 CFR 5.13(c)), though we The procedures contained in this final modification of guidance documents. are revising these regulations to give the rule apply to all guidance documents, See 49 CFR 5.43. public greater opportunities to petition which the Department defines as any This final rule also responds to the Department. In addition to petitions statement of agency policy or Executive Order 13891, titled: for rulemaking, our procedures will also interpretation concerning a statute, ‘‘Promoting the Rule of Law Through explicitly allow the public to file regulation, or technical matter within Improved Agency Guidance petitions for the performance of the jurisdiction of the agency that is Documents’’ (October 9, 2019). In that retrospective regulatory reviews. With intended to have general applicability Executive Order, Federal agencies are regard to direct final rules, the and future effect, but which is not required to finalize regulations, or Department will be removing language intended to have the force or effect of amend existing regulations as necessary, that requires the withdrawal of a direct law in its own right and is not otherwise to set forth processes and procedures for final rule if a notice of intent to file an required by statute to satisfy the issuing guidance documents.5 This final adverse comment is received; instead rulemaking procedures of the rule incorporates requirements found in withdrawal will be required upon the Administrative Procedure Act. the Executive Order that were not This final rule codifies the actual receipt of an adverse comment. otherwise provided for in the Department’s existing procedures Individuals who intend to file an Department’s existing procedures,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 134/Friday, July 16, 2021/Rules
    37674 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations (Federalism), it is determined that this DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, action does not have sufficient DC 20530. Comments received by mail federalism implications to warrant the 28 CFR Part 50 will be considered timely if they are preparation of a Federalism Assessment. [Docket No. OAG 174; AG Order No. 5077– postmarked on or before August 16, As noted above, this action is an 2021] 2021. The electronic Federal eRulemaking portal will accept order, not a rule. Accordingly, the RIN 1105–AB61 comments until Midnight Eastern Time Congressional Review Act (CRA) 3 is at the end of that day. inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. Processes and Procedures for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 5 U.S.C. 801, 804(3). It is in the public Issuance and Use of Guidance Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, interest to maintain the temporary Documents Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department placement of N-ethylhexedrone, a-PHP, AGENCY: Office of the Attorney General, of Justice, telephone (202) 514–8059 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-a- Department of Justice. (not a toll-free number). PVP in schedule I because they pose a ACTION: Interim final rule; request for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: public health risk, for the reasons comments. expressed in the temporary scheduling I. Posting of Public Comments order (84 FR 34291, July 18, 2019). The SUMMARY: This interim final rule Please note that all comments temporary scheduling action was taken (‘‘rule’’) implements Executive Order received are considered part of the pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Core+ for Firms, Government Institutions, and Other Organizations
    U.S. CORE+ FOR FIRMS, GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Choose HeinOnline and give your organization the competitive advantage with our premier online legal research package offering 30 databases of current and historical content. THE HEINONLINE ADVANTAGE FEATURED DATABASES IN THE PACKAGE Affordable • Brennan Center for Justice Publications • Canada Supreme Court Reports In addition to the wealth of material • Civil Rights and Social Justice - New at an incredible price, more than one • Code of Federal Regulations million pages are added to HeinOnline each month. The value of a subscription • COVID-19: Pandemics Past and Present - New increases with each content release. • Criminal Justice & Criminology • Early American Case Law • English Reports Comprehensive • European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) HeinOnline contains more than 3,000 • Executive Privilege - New journals on a variety of subjects. All • Fastcase (U.S. State & Federal Case Law) journals date back to inception, and • Federal Register Library more than 90% are available through the • GAO Reports and Comptroller General Decisions current issue or volume. • Gun Regulation and Legislation in America • Law Journal Library Authoritative • Legal Classics • Military and Government - New HeinOnline is composed of image-based • Open Society Justice Initiative - New PDFs, which are as authoritative as print • Pentagon Papers material for citation purposes, because • Revised Statutes of Canada they are exact facsimiles of the original print materials. • Statutes of the Realm • U.S. Code • U.S. Congressional Documents Incredible Customer Service • U.S. Congressional Serial Set HeinOnline’s support team is second to • U.S. Federal Legislative History Library none, providing users with searching • U.S. Presidential Impeachment Library - New and document retrieval assistance, • U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Federal Regulations | Quick Reference Guide
    Help & Support Help & Support Code of Federal Regulations Quick Reference Guide The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations (sometimes called administrative law) published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. HeinOnline’s coverage of the CFR is comprehensive. Title/Part/Section Quick Locator Use this tool to quickly retrieve specific titles, parts, and sections from within the CFR. For example, search for Title 33, Part 160, Section 204 (33 CFR 160.204) from 2015 and click Find Section. Because the CFR is indexed to the title and part, but not the section level, this query will produce search results in the specified year, title and part which contain the section number. NOTE: After entering year, title, part, and section information, Federal Register issues in which the specified citation has been affected will appear in a red box.* Click any link to access the Federal Register page range in which the citation was affected. *This tool is available for the Federal Register from 2015 to date. CFR Citation Locator This tool functions like the Title/Part/Section Quick Locator. Using the same example of Title 33, Part 160, Section 204 (33 CFR 160.204) from 2015, use the provided boxes to enter the information and click Find Citation. Because the CFR is indexed to the title and part, but not the section level, this query will produce search results in the specified year, title and part which contain the section number.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers
    The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney December 23, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43834 The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers Summary Article III of the Constitution restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts to deciding actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” The Supreme Court has articulated several “justiciability” doctrines emanating from Article III that restrict when federal courts will adjudicate disputes. One justiciability concept is the political question doctrine, according to which federal courts will not adjudicate certain controversies because their resolution is more proper within the political branches. Because of the potential implications for the separation of powers when courts decline to adjudicate certain issues, application of the political question doctrine has sparked controversy. Because there is no precise test for when a court should find a political question, however, understanding exactly when the doctrine applies can be difficult. The doctrine’s origins can be traced to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison; but its modern application stems from Baker v. Carr, which provides six independent factors that can present political questions. These factors encompass both constitutional and prudential considerations, but the Court has not clearly explained how they are to be applied. Further, commentators have disagreed about the doctrine’s foundation: some see political questions as limited to constitutional grants of authority to a coordinate branch of government, while others see the doctrine as a tool for courts to avoid adjudicating an issue best resolved outside of the judicial branch. Supreme Court case law after Baker fails to resolve the matter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nondelegation Doctrine: Alive and Well
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\93-2\NDL204.txt unknown Seq: 1 28-DEC-17 10:20 THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE: ALIVE AND WELL Jason Iuliano* & Keith E. Whittington** The nondelegation doctrine is dead. It is difficult to think of a more frequently repeated or widely accepted legal conclusion. For generations, scholars have maintained that the doctrine was cast aside by the New Deal Court and is now nothing more than a historical curiosity. In this Article, we argue that the conventional wisdom is mistaken in an important respect. Drawing on an original dataset of more than one thousand nondelegation challenges, we find that, although the doctrine has disappeared at the federal level, it has thrived at the state level. In fact, in the decades since the New Deal, state courts have grown more willing to invoke the nondelegation doctrine. Despite the countless declarations of its demise, the nondelegation doctrine is, in a meaningful sense, alive and well. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 619 R I. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE . 621 R A. The Doctrine’s Life ..................................... 621 R B. The Doctrine’s Death ................................... 623 R II. THE STRUCTURE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION ....... 626 R III. THE PERSISTENCE OF THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE ...... 634 R A. Success Rate .......................................... 635 R B. Pre– and Post–New Deal Comparison .................... 639 R C. Representative Cases.................................... 643 R CONCLUSION .................................................... 645 R INTRODUCTION The story of the nondelegation doctrine’s demise is a familiar one. Eighty years ago, the New Deal Court discarded this principle, and since then, this once-powerful check on administrative expansion has had no place in our constitutional canon.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-161 Department of Homeland Security V
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v. THURAISSIGIAM CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 19–161. Argued March 2, 2020—Decided June 25, 2020 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) provides for the expedited removal of certain “applicants” seeking admission into the United States, whether at a designated port of entry or elsewhere. 8 U. S. C. §1225(a)(1). An applicant may avoid expedited removal by demonstrating to an asylum officer a “credible fear of persecution,” defined as “a significant possibility . that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum.” §1225(b)(1)(B)(v). An ap- plicant who makes this showing is entitled to “full consideration” of an asylum claim in a standard removal hearing. 8 CFR §208.30(f). An asylum officer’s rejection of a credible-fear claim is reviewed by a su- pervisor and may then be appealed to an immigration judge. §§208.30(e)(8), 1003.42(c), (d)(1). But IIRIRA limits the review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • Lions Over the Throne - the Udicj Ial Revolution in English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz N
    Penn State International Law Review Volume 6 Article 8 Number 1 Dickinson Journal of International Law 1987 Lions Over The Throne - The udicJ ial Revolution In English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz N. David Palmeter Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Palmeter, N. David (1987) "Lions Over The Throne - The udJ icial Revolution In English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 6: No. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol6/iss1/8 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lions Over the Throne - The Judicial Revolution in English Administrative Law, by Bernard Schwartz, New York and London: New York University Press, 1987 Pp. 210. Reviewed by N. David Palmeter* We learn more about our own laws when we undertake to compare them with those of another sovereign. - Justice San- dra Day O'Connor' In 1964, half a dozen years before Goldberg v. Kelly' began "a due process explosion" 3 in the United States, Ridge v. Baldwin4 be- gan a "natural justice explosion" in England. The story of this explo- sion - of this judicial revolution - is the story of the creation and development by common law judges of a system of judicial supervi- sion of administrative action that, in many ways, goes far beyond the system presently prevailing in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney General's Manual on The
    Attorney GeneraI's'Man~al on the Administrative Procedure Act WM. W. GAUNT 6' SONS, INC. Holmes Beach, Florida 33510 1973 ~ ;' Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc Reprint Edition This is an unabridged republication of the first editign published in [~H7 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 7Z-97700 International Standard Book Number 9 12004 - 11 - 4 Published by Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc. 3011 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida 33510 Printed in the United States of America by Jones Offset, Inc., Bradenton Beach, Florida 33510 Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act Prepared by the United States Department of Justice TOM C. CLARK Attorney General TAnLB OF CONTENTS Pa~ INTRODUCTION . 5 Note Concerning Manner of Citation of Legi.dative MateriaL . 8 I-FuNDAMJo:NTAL CONC'EPTIl . 9 •.\. •• ~a..lic PurpO!le:lof the, ~dmin.htra~ive Procedure Act . 9 b. Coverage of the Admlm:ltrallve I roeedure Act.. : . 9 :=) c. Distinction between Hille Making an<1 Adjudieation .. 12 ,/ . II-SeCTION 3, PUBLIC INfORMATION. .. 17 .. Agencies Subject to Section 3 . 17 Exceptions to Requirement! of Section 3........... .. 17 (1) Any function of the United State3 rerluiring secrecy in the public interest . 17 (2) Any matter relatinlf !lo]rdy to the internal management of an agency.. 18 Effective Date-Pro3pectlve Operation............. .. 18 SECTION 3 (a)-RULES...................................... 19 Separate Statement._.................... 19 Description of Organization......... 19 Statement of Procedures. .. 20 Substantive Rules.................... .. .. 22 Section 3 (b)-Opinions and Or'!eri............ 23 24 1I~~~T:o~C)~Kt~~C fi~~~[~~.::: .• :::::.::.. :.. :::::::::::::·::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::~::: 26 Exceptions (1) Any military, naval, or foreign alTairs function of the United StatelJ...
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 124/Friday, June 26
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 124 / Friday, June 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 38301 the applicant’s or co-applicant’s day delayed effective date for SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ethnicity, race, sex, and age as ‘‘not substantive rules under section 553(d) applicable’’ if the applicant or co- of the Administrative Procedure Act.7 13 CFR Part 120 applicant is not a natural person. For Therefore, this rule is effective on June [Docket No. SBA–2020–0039] these reasons, the Bureau will not count 26, 2020, the same date that it is first-lien originations reported in HMDA published in the Federal Register. RIN 3245–AH53 data for which both the applicant’s and III. Regulatory Requirements co-applicant’s ethnicity, race, sex, and Business Loan Program Temporary age all are reported as follows: (1) The This rule articulates the Bureau’s Changes; Paycheck Protection applicant’s ethnicity is reported as ‘‘Not interpretation of Regulation Z and TILA. Program—Additional Eligibility applicable’’ (HMDA Code 4); (2) the Revisions to First Interim Final Rule applicant’s race is reported as ‘‘Not As an interpretive rule, it is exempt applicable’’ (HMDA Code 7); (3) the from the notice-and-comment AGENCY: U.S. Small Business applicant’s sex is reported as ‘‘Not rulemaking requirements of the Administration. 8 applicable’’ (HMDA Code 4); (4) the Administrative Procedure Act. Because ACTION: Interim final rule. applicant’s age is reported as ‘‘Not no notice of proposed rulemaking is applicable’’ (HMDA Code 8888); (5) the required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act SUMMARY: On April 2, 2020, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Availability of Mandamus As a Vehicle for Administrative Review
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals January 2019 The vA ailability of Mandamus as a Vehicle for Administrative Review Jane E. Bond Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Recommended Citation Bond, Jane E. (1976) "The vA ailability of Mandamus as a Vehicle for Administrative Review," Akron Law Review: Vol. 9 : Iss. 4 , Article 11. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol9/iss4/11 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Bond: Comment THE AVAILABILITY OF MANDAMUS AS A VEHICLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW INTRODUCTION Law has reached its finest moments when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler ... some bureaucrat. Where dis- cretion is absolute, man has always suffered.' The potential injustice inherent in vesting absolute discretion with a single individual has long been viewed with alarm. One antidote which our legal system has prescribed is administered under the broad heading of judicial review. While it may appear in different forms-appeal by right, through extraordinary writ, or to a lesser degree, by referral through a bureaucratic structure or to an ombudsman'- the principle upon which it is grounded remains the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Counting Regulations: an Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register
    Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register Updated September 3, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43056 Counting Regulations Summary Federal rulemaking is an important mechanism through which the federal government implements policy. Federal agencies issue regulations pursuant to statutory authority granted by Congress. Therefore, Congress may have an interest in performing oversight of those regulations, and measuring federal regulatory activity can be one way for Congress to conduct that oversight. The number of federal rules issued annually and the total number of pages in the Federal Register are often referred to as measures of the total federal regulatory burden. Certain methods of quantifying regulatory activity, however, may provide an imperfect portrayal of the total federal rulemaking burden. For example, the number of final rules published each year is generally in the range of 3,000-4,500, according to the Office of the Federal Register. Some of those rules have a large effect on the economy, and others have a significant legal and/or policy effect, even if the direct economic effects of the regulation are minimal. On the other hand, many federal rules are routine in nature and impose minimal regulatory burden, if any. In addition, rules that are deregulatory in nature and those that repeal existing rules are still defined as “rules” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. §§551 et seq.) and are therefore generally included in counts of total regulatory activity, even though they do not impose a new net regulatory burden.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 135/Tuesday, July 14, 2020/Rules
    42494 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE docket number or RIN for this FIRREA Financial Institutions Reform, rulemaking. All comments received will Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 Rural Utilities Service be posted without change to https:// FR Federal Register www.regulations.gov, including any FSRIA Farm Security and Rural Investment Rural Housing Service Act of 2002 personal information provided. GAAP Generally accepted accounting Docket: For access to the docket to principles Rural Business-Cooperative Service read background documents or GPO Government Printing Office comments received, go to https:// ICBA Independent Community Bankers of 7 CFR Parts 1779, 3575, 4279, 4287, www.regulations.gov. America and 5001 LNG Loan Note Guarantee FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NEPA National Environmental Policy Act [Docket No. RUS–19-Agency–0030] Thomas P. Dickson, Regulations NMTC New Markets Tax Credit Management Division Team 2, Rural RIN 0572–AC43 OGC Office of General Counsel Development Innovation Center, U.S. OMB Office of Management and Budget OneRD Guaranteed Loan Regulation Department of Agriculture, 1400 OneRD OneRD Guaranteed Loan Program Independence Ave. SW, Stop 1522, PER Preliminary Engineering Reports AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Washington, DC 20250; telephone 202– QALICB Qualified Active Low Income Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural 690–4492; email thomas.dickson@ Community Business Utilities Service, USDA. RD Rural Development usda.gov. REAP Rural Energy for America Program ACTION: Final rule; request for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act comments. RMA Risk Management Association Table of Contents for Preamble SAM System for Award Management SUMMARY: The Rural Business- § Section Cooperative Service, Rural Housing I.
    [Show full text]