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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.