Reducing Regulatory Burden, 38019-38021 [2015-16383]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38019-38021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16383]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 38019]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

5 CFR Chapter XXII

10 CFR Chapters II, III, and X


Reducing Regulatory Burden

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Request for information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, 
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President 
on January 18, 2011, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) is 
seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist DOE 
in reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether any such 
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. The 
purpose of DOE's review is to make the agency's regulatory program more 
effective and less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives. 
In this request for information, DOE also highlights its regulatory 
review and reform efforts conducted to date in light of comments from 
interested parties.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before July 
17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, 
identified by ``Regulatory Burden RFI,'' by any of the following 
methods:
    White House Web site: https://www.whitehouse.gov/advise
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email: Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov. Include ``Regulatory Burden 
RFI'' in the subject line of the message.
    Mail: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6A245, Washington, DC 20585.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or 
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    That Department's plan for retrospective review of its regulations 
and its subsequent update reports can be accessed at https://energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Stevenson, Office of the 
Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy 
Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-5000. 
Email: Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 18, 2011, the President issued 
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 
to ensure that Federal regulations seek more affordable, less intrusive 
means to achieve policy goals, and that agencies give careful 
consideration to the benefits and costs of those regulations. To that 
end, the Executive Order requires, among other things, that:
     Agencies propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; and that 
agencies tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations; and that, consistent with applicable law, 
agencies select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
     The regulatory process encourages public participation and 
an open exchange of views, with an opportunity for the public to 
comment.
     Agencies coordinate, simplify, and harmonize regulations 
to reduce costs and promote certainty for businesses and the public.
     Agencies consider low-cost approaches that reduce burdens 
and maintain flexibility.
     Regulations be guided by objective scientific evidence.
    Additionally, the Executive Order directs agencies to consider how 
best to promote retrospective analyses of existing rules. Specifically, 
agencies were required to develop a plan under which the agency will 
periodically review existing regulations to determine which should be 
maintained, modified, strengthened, or repealed to increase the 
effectiveness and decrease the burdens of the agency's regulatory 
program. DOE's plan and its subsequent update reports can be accessed 
at https://energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.
    The Department is committed to maintaining a consistent culture of 
retrospective review and analysis. DOE will continually engage in 
review of its rules to determine whether there are burdens on the 
public that can be avoided by amending or rescinding existing 
requirements. To that end, DOE is publishing this RFI to again 
explicitly solicit public input. In addition, DOE is always open to 
receiving information about the impact of its regulations. To 
facilitate both this RFI and the ongoing submission of comments, 
interested parties can identify regulations that may be in need of 
review at the following recently established White House Web site: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/advise. DOE has also created a link on the 
Web page of DOE's Office of the General Counsel to an email in-box for 
the submission of comments, Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov.
    While the Department promulgates rules in accordance with the law 
and to the best of its analytic capability, it is difficult to be 
certain of the consequences of a rule, including its costs and 
benefits, until it has been tested. Because knowledge about the full 
effects of a rule is widely dispersed in society, members of the public 
are likely to have useful information and perspectives on the benefits 
and burdens of existing requirements and how regulatory obligations may 
be updated, streamlined, revised, or repealed to better achieve 
regulatory objectives, while minimizing regulatory burdens. Interested 
parties may also be well-positioned to identify those rules that are 
most in need of review and, thus, assist the Department in prioritizing 
and properly tailoring its retrospective review process. In short, 
engaging the public in an open, transparent process is a crucial step 
in DOE's review of its existing regulations.

[[Page 38020]]

    The Department's dedication to involve the public in the regulatory 
process has manifested itself in the development of a draft public 
engagement plan. As part of this plan, the Department will continue 
already successful public engagement efforts. The ongoing efforts will 
include seeking public input on the retrospective review process, 
posting comments on our Web page to encourage the public to share their 
thoughts on the comments of others, and the existence of a dedicated 
retrospective review email address. These efforts encourage public 
engagement in the retrospective review process, and provide the ability 
for the public to comment and engage in a dialog on the improvement of 
DOE regulations.
    The draft public engagement plan also contains new, innovative ways 
of engaging the public in the regulatory review process. In particular, 
the Department has tasked the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 
Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) to assist DOE in the retrospective 
review process. ASRAC was created as an advisory committee to provide 
advice and recommendations on the development of standards and test 
procedures for residential appliances and commercial equipment, 
certification and enforcement of standards, and product labeling. ASRAC 
is comprised of representatives from industry, utilities, energy 
efficiency/environmental advocacy groups, and consumer groups. As a 
part of the retrospective regulatory review process, the Department has 
tasked ASRAC to identify particular rules for which revision would have 
the most positive impact and potential improvement to the regulatory 
process. ASRAC meetings are also open to the public and notice of ASRAC 
meetings are published in the Federal Register. ASRAC has also been 
tasked with writing a report that details their recommendations for the 
regulatory review process. The Department will review this report and, 
as appropriate, incorporate the recommendations as a part of its 
retrospective regulatory review process. ASRAC has already held two 
meetings at which retrospective regulatory review was on the agenda. 
Involving ASRAC in the regulatory review process will provide the 
public with another means to help the Department determine the 
regulations that could benefit the most from retrospective review.

Department of Energy Retrospective Review Successes

    The Department highlights the examples below as retrospective 
review successes resulting from public engagement in the regulatory 
process. For further details and additional examples, the public is 
invited to review DOE's February 2015 update report, available at 
https://www.energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.
    (1) DOE waived the R-Value Door Requirement for Walk-in Cooler/
Freezer(s) (WICF) for a small business manufacturer. Due to an existing 
statutory standard, a small business was not going to be able to 
manufacturer the product that was subject to the DOE energy 
conservation standard. The Department used a flexible approach that 
facilitated innovation and prevented substantial hardship from falling 
on the company while preserving the Department's goal of increasing 
energy efficiency. As a result of the waiver, the company was able to 
retain over 100 employees.
    (2) DOE promulgated a rule to extend the test procedure compliance 
date for walk-in coolers and freezers and metal halide lamp fixtures. 
The Department published the final rule to clarify the compliance date 
by which manufacturers must use portions of the test procedure that was 
published in the past and to adopt an extension to the compliance date 
for which the manufacturers need to certify compliance to the 
Department of metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures. The Department 
was responding to concerns raised by manufacturers in the promulgation 
of the rule and the extension of compliance dates. Moving forward, the 
Department will continue to consider feedback in determining whether 
the testing procedures are warranted. In working with interested 
parties to develop the rule and the extension of the compliance dates 
the manufacturers were benefitted with extra guidance on the rule and 
additional time in the certification process.
    (3) The Department also worked with the public to avoid further 
economic hardship resulting from its certification and enforcement 
regulations. The Department received feedback from manufacturers who 
voiced their concerns that the testing requirements under the rule 
would take several years to complete and the compliance date associated 
with this program could undermine their research and development 
efforts. As a result of this, the Department published an extension of 
compliance dates for a number of other types of commercial equipment 
subject to the final energy efficiency certification and enforcement 
rule. The Department will continue to work with the public and 
interested parties in determining whether future adjustments to its 
certification and enforcement procedures are warranted.The Department 
also updated the Federal Building Standards Rule as part of its 
retrospective review process. The Energy Conservation and Production 
Act requires DOE to update the baseline federal energy efficiency 
performance standards for the construction of new federal buildings. 
These federal buildings include commercial and multi-family high-rise 
residential buildings. When developing the rule, the Department 
considered comments and information received from interested parties. 
The result of this process is a rule intended to establish baseline 
energy standards while providing flexibility in how these requirements 
are achieved.
    (4) DOE has also made it easier for companies to report information 
by analyzing the Procurement Reporting and Record-keeping Burdens. The 
Department initiated the use of asset management software to ease the 
reporting of property inventories that is required by the Department of 
Energy Acquisition Regulation Act. This software streamlines the 
requirements for submitting information to the Department, and the 
Department will continues, as part of its retrospective review efforts 
to consider any additional feedback received regarding paperwork 
collection. This initiative is estimated to reduce the reporting burden 
by 225,166 hours for the Department's property management and operating 
contractors.

List of Questions for Commenters

    The following list of questions is intended to assist in the 
formulation of comments and not to restrict the issues that may be 
addressed. In addressing these questions or others, DOE requests that 
commenters identify with specificity the regulation or reporting 
requirement at issue, providing legal citation where available. The 
Department also requests that the submitter provide, in as much detail 
as possible, an explanation why a regulation or reporting requirement 
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, as well as 
specific suggestions of ways the Department can better achieve its 
regulatory objectives.
    (1) How can the Department best promote meaningful periodic reviews 
of its existing rules and how can it best identify those rules that 
might be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed?

[[Page 38021]]

    (2) What factors should the agency consider in selecting and 
prioritizing rules and reporting requirements for review?
    (3) Are there regulations that are or have become unnecessary, 
ineffective, or ill advised and, if so, what are they? Are there rules 
that can simply be repealed without impairing the Department's 
regulatory programs and, if so, what are they?
    (4) Are there rules or reporting requirements that have become 
outdated and, if so, how can they be modernized to accomplish their 
regulatory objectives better?
    (5) Are there rules that are still necessary, but have not operated 
as well as expected such that a modified, stronger, or slightly 
different approach is justified?
    (6) Does the Department currently collect information that it does 
not need or use effectively to achieve regulatory objectives?
    (7) Are there regulations, reporting requirements, or regulatory 
processes that are unnecessarily complicated or could be streamlined to 
achieve regulatory objectives in more efficient ways?
    (8) Are there rules or reporting requirements that have been 
overtaken by technological developments? Can new technologies be 
leveraged to modify, streamline, or do away with existing regulatory or 
reporting requirements?
    (9) How can the Department best obtain and consider accurate, 
objective information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits 
of existing regulations? Are there existing sources of data the 
Department can use to evaluate the post-promulgation effects of 
regulations over time? We invite interested parties to provide data 
that may be in their possession that documents the costs, burdens, and 
benefits of existing requirements.
    (10) Are there regulations that are working well that can be 
expanded or used as a model to fill gaps in other DOE regulatory 
programs?
    The Department notes that this RFI is issued solely for information 
and program-planning purposes. Responses to this RFI do not bind DOE to 
any further actions related to the response. All submissions will be 
made publically available on. https://www.regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2015.
Steven P. Croley,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-16383 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P