Reducing Regulatory Burden, 6123-6124 [2011-2368]
Download as PDF
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Notices
Affected Public: Individuals and
households; not-for-profit institutions;
State, Local, or Tribal Government, State
Educational Agencies or Local
Educational Agencies.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 22,760.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 8,725.
Abstract: The study is being
conducted as part of the National
Assessment of Title I, mandated by Title
I, Part E, Section 1501 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. The
study is designed to identify school
programs and instructional practices
associated with improved language
development, background knowledge,
and comprehension outcomes for
children in prekindergarten through
third grade. Analyses will estimate the
associations between instructional
programs and practices and student
outcomes to inform future rigorous
evaluation of strategies to improve
language and comprehension outcomes
for at-risk children in these early years
of school. We will identify 10 locations
for the study, including 7–8 of the
largest urban school districts and 2–3
States with large Title I populations.
Within each of the 10 locations, we will
select 5 high-performing and 5 lowperforming schools. Within each school,
we will randomly sample an average of
three classrooms per grade. Within each
classroom, we will randomly sample 8
students. Students will be assessed in
fall and spring. Principals, teachers, and
parents will be surveyed once, and
students’ classrooms will be observed
twice in the fall and twice in the spring.
Information from students’ school
records will be extracted at the end of
the school year.
Requests for copies of the proposed
information collection request may be
accessed from https://edicsweb.ed.gov,
by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending
Collections’’ link and by clicking on link
number 4494. When you access the
information collection, click on
‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view.
Written requests for information should
be addressed to U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537.
Requests may also be electronically
mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed
to 202–401–0920. Please specify the
complete title of the information
collection and OMB Control Number
when making your request.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Feb 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339.
[FR Doc. 2011–2379 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Submission for OMB Review
Correction
In notice document 2011–2099 on
pages 5356–5357 in the issue of
Monday, January 31, 2011, make the
following correction:
On page 5356, in the second column,
in the DATES section, ‘‘January 31, 2011’’
should read ‘‘March 2, 2011’’.
[FR Doc. C1–2011–2099 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Reducing Regulatory Burden
Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
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 (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.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested on or before
March 21, 2011. Reply comments are
requested on or before April 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments,
identified by ‘‘Regulatory Burden RFI,’’
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail:
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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6123
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Cohen, 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. E-mail:
Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov.
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
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
must develop a preliminary 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.
To implement the Executive Order,
the Department is taking two immediate
steps to launch its retrospective review
of existing regulatory and reporting
requirements. First, as described further
below, the Department issues this
Request for Information (RFI) seeking
public comment on how best to review
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
6124
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Notices
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
its existing regulations and to identify
whether any of its existing regulations
should be modified, streamlined,
expanded, or repealed. Second, the
Department has created a link on the
Web page of DOE’s Office of the General
Counsel to an e-mail in-box at
Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov, which
interested parties can use to identify to
DOE—on a continuing basis—
regulations that may be in need of
review in the future. It may also be used
to provide thoughts in this proceeding
outside of the traditional initial
comment and reply comment filings (all
such comments will be made public).
Together, these steps will help the
Department ensure that its regulations
remain necessary, properly tailored, upto-date requirements that effectively
achieve regulatory objectives without
imposing unwarranted costs.
Request for Information
Pursuant to the Executive Order, the
Department is developing a preliminary
plan for the periodic review of its
existing regulations and reporting
obligations. The Department’s goal is to
create a systematic method for
identifying those significant rules that
are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified,
or simply no longer make sense. While
this review will focus on the
elimination of rules that are no longer
warranted, DOE will also consider
strengthening, complementing, or
modernizing rules where necessary or
appropriate—including, as relevant,
undertaking new rulemakings.
Consistent with the Department’s
commitment to public participation in
the rulemaking process, the Department
is beginning this process by soliciting
views from the public on how best to
conduct its analysis of existing DOE
rules and how best to identify those
rules that might be modified,
streamlined, expanded, or repealed. It is
also seeking views from the public on
specific rules or Department imposed
obligations that should be altered or
eliminated. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Feb 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 first step
in DOE’s review of its existing
regulations.
List of Questions for Commenters
The following list of questions
represents a preliminary attempt to
identify issues raised by the
Department’s efforts to develop a
preliminary plan for the retrospective
analysis of its regulations and to
identify rules/obligations on which it
should immediately focus. This nonexhaustive list is meant to assist in the
formulation of comments and is not
intended 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?
(2) What factors should the agency
consider in selecting and prioritizing
rules and reporting requirements for
review?
(3) Are there regulations that simply
make no sense 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
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) Are there any of the Department’s
regulations that fail to make a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its
costs; or that are not tailored 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; or that fail to
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)?
(10) 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.
(11) 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. While
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 January 28,
2011.
Scott Blake Harris,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011–2368 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6123-6124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2368]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Reducing Regulatory Burden
AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (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.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before
March 21, 2011. Reply comments are requested on or before April 4,
2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments,
identified by ``Regulatory Burden RFI,'' by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Cohen, 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. E-mail:
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 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 must develop a preliminary 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.
To implement the Executive Order, the Department is taking two
immediate steps to launch its retrospective review of existing
regulatory and reporting requirements. First, as described further
below, the Department issues this Request for Information (RFI) seeking
public comment on how best to review
[[Page 6124]]
its existing regulations and to identify whether any of its existing
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.
Second, the Department has created a link on the Web page of DOE's
Office of the General Counsel to an e-mail in-box at
Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov, which interested parties can use to
identify to DOE--on a continuing basis--regulations that may be in need
of review in the future. It may also be used to provide thoughts in
this proceeding outside of the traditional initial comment and reply
comment filings (all such comments will be made public). Together,
these steps will help the Department ensure that its regulations remain
necessary, properly tailored, up-to-date requirements that effectively
achieve regulatory objectives without imposing unwarranted costs.
Request for Information
Pursuant to the Executive Order, the Department is developing a
preliminary plan for the periodic review of its existing regulations
and reporting obligations. The Department's goal is to create a
systematic method for identifying those significant rules that are
obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, or simply no longer make sense.
While this review will focus on the elimination of rules that are no
longer warranted, DOE will also consider strengthening, complementing,
or modernizing rules where necessary or appropriate--including, as
relevant, undertaking new rulemakings.
Consistent with the Department's commitment to public participation
in the rulemaking process, the Department is beginning this process by
soliciting views from the public on how best to conduct its analysis of
existing DOE rules and how best to identify those rules that might be
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. It is also seeking views
from the public on specific rules or Department imposed obligations
that should be altered or eliminated. 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 first step in DOE's review of its existing
regulations.
List of Questions for Commenters
The following list of questions represents a preliminary attempt to
identify issues raised by the Department's efforts to develop a
preliminary plan for the retrospective analysis of its regulations and
to identify rules/obligations on which it should immediately focus.
This non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in the formulation of
comments and is not intended 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?
(2) What factors should the agency consider in selecting and
prioritizing rules and reporting requirements for review?
(3) Are there regulations that simply make no sense 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) Are there any of the Department's regulations that fail to make
a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; or that
are not tailored 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; or that fail to 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)?
(10) 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.
(11) 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. While 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 January 28, 2011.
Scott Blake Harris,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-2368 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P