Reducing Regulatory Burden, 28736-28738 [2016-10956]

Download as PDF 28736 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 90 Tuesday, May 10, 2016 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. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 5 CFR Chapter XXIII 10 CFR Chapters II, III, and X Reducing Regulatory Burden Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 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 (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its existing regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.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 most recent 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 11, 2016. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, identified by ‘‘Regulatory Burden RFI,’’ by any of the following methods: White House Web site: http:// www.whitehouse.gov/engage. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 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 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. The Department’s plan for retrospective review of its regulations and its subsequent update reports can be accessed at http://energy.gov/gc/ services/open-government/ restrospective-regulatory-review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Zogby, 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 http:// energy.gov/gc/services/opengovernment/restrospective-regulatoryreview. 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 White House Web site: http:// www.whitehouse.gov/engage. 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. The Department’s dedication to involve the public in the regulatory E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM 10MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules process includes a number of ongoing successful public engagement efforts. These efforts 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 considering input received through 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 Department has developed another innovative way to engage the public in the regulatory review process. 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. ASRAC 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. ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 previous update reports, available at http://www.energy.gov/gc/ services/open-government/ restrospective-regulatory-review. New retrospective successes from DOE’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 March 2016 and July 2015 reports are described below. (1) DOE published a proposed rule to amend its regulations for the timely coordination of Federal Authorizations for proposed interstate electric transmission facilities pursuant to section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act. This rulemaking will improve the preapplication procedures and result in more efficient processing of applications. The proposed rule implements a number of Presidential directives, including the Presidential Memorandum on ‘‘Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review’’ (August 31, 2011), Executive Order 13604, ‘‘Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects’’ (March 22, 2012), the Presidential Memorandum on ‘‘Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures ’’ (May 17, 2013, and the Presidential Memorandum on ‘‘Transforming our Nation’s Electric Grid Through Improved Siting, Permitting, and Review’’ (June 7, 2013). (2) DOE published a final rule amending the administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements with for-profit organizations. Specifically, the rule modifies title provisions and requirements related to the handling of real property and equipment acquired with federal funds. The rule also adds provisions related to export control requirements and supporting U.S. manufacturing, reporting on utilization of subject inventions, novation of financial assistance agreements, and changes of control of recipients. The rule will reduce the burden on grant recipients because they will need to file only UCC–1s and will not have to negotiate a separate ‘‘priority’’ term in their individual grant agreements. As part of its retrospective review efforts, DOE will continue to consider input from affected parties on ways to reduce burdens on its grant recipients and entities with which DOE enters cooperative agreements. (3) DOE issued a comprehensive update of regulations in 10 CFR part 810 concerning Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities, making the regulations consistent with current global civil nuclear trade practices and nonproliferation norms. DOE has also initiated a process improvement program to reduce the public burden associated with nuclear technology export authorizations, to reduce specific authorization processing time, and to PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 28737 create a guide to part 810 and an electronic application and tracking (e810) system. Since the Part 810 final rule went into effect on March 25, 2015, DOE has created guidance and FAQs, which are available online. As a result of the rule revisions, DOE estimates a net benefit, for the period 2013–2030, of $19,896,142 per year at a 7-percent discount rate and $19,253,076 per year at a 3-percent discount rate. The process improvement program is expected to reduce the time needed for DOE to process nuclear export authorizations and provide more transparency to submitters regarding process steps and the associated time needed to complete each step. 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? (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? E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM 10MYP1 28738 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules (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 http://www.regulations.gov. Issued in Washington, DC on May 3, 2016. Steven P. Croley, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 2016–10956 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Parts 272, 274, and 280 [FNS 2015–0021] RIN 0584–AE00 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D–SNAP) Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: This proposed rule would amend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly the Food Stamp Program) regulations to establish procedures for planning, requesting and operating a Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 Program (D–SNAP). The rulemaking is necessary to implement a section of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. This rulemaking also addresses a section of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 and accompanying Executive Order 12673, which provides the authority for the Department to determine the need for SNAP assistance during a presidentially-declared disaster. DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before July 11, 2016. ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Preferred method. Go to http:// www.regulations.gov; follow the online instructions for submitting comments on Docket FNS 2015–0021. FAX: Submit comments by facsimile transmission to (703) 305–2486, attention: Sasha Gersten-Paal. Mail: Send comments to Sasha Gersten-Paal, Branch Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 812, Alexandria, Virginia, 22302, (703) 305–2507. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to Sasha Gersten-Paal at the above address. Additional electronic filing information: You may download a copy of this rule from www.fns.usda.gov/ SNAP. You may also comment via the Internet at the same address. Please include ATTENTION RIN: 0584–AE00 in the subject line and your name and address in the message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your comment please call Sasha Gersten-Paal at 703–305–2507. All comments on this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the comments publicly available on the Internet via http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions will be available for public inspection at the office of FNS during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 810, Alexandria, Virginia 22302–1594. Written comments on this proposed rule should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the rule, and should PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 explain the reason for any change you recommend. Where possible, you should reference the specific section or paragraph you are addressing. We may not consider or include in the Administrative Record that supports the final rulemaking comments that we receive after the close of the comment period or comments delivered to an address other than that listed above. We will make available all comments for public inspection, including, name, address and other contact information of respondents. If you wish to request that we consider withholding your name, address, or other contact information from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will honor requests for confidentiality on a case-by-case basis to the extent allowed by law. We will make available for public inspection in their entirety all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses. For further information concerning this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) you may contact Sasha Gersten-Paal, Branch Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 810, Alexandria, Virginia, 22302, or by email at Sasha.Gersten-Paal@ fns.usda.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The basic premise underlying the D– SNAP and this proposed rule is that when a disaster occurs (and after commercial channels of food distribution are operating again) there is an increased and immediate need for nutrition assistance for families that have suffered loss of income and/or incurred additional costs due to the disaster. SNAP is not designed to take disaster-related expenses into account in determining eligibility. SNAP eligibility requirements typically do not match the sudden (but temporary) needs of households affected by disaster, and SNAP’s procedural requirements make it difficult for States to handle the large number of people suddenly in need of immediate assistance. Thus, it may be necessary to implement a D–SNAP that uses a different set of rules to determine need and issue benefits. E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM 10MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28736-28738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10956]


========================================================================
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. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 28736]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

5 CFR Chapter XXIII

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 most recent 
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 
11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, 
identified by ``Regulatory Burden RFI,'' by any of the following 
methods:
    White House Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/engage.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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 http://www.regulations.gov.
    The Department's plan for retrospective review of its regulations 
and its subsequent update reports can be accessed at http://energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Zogby, 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. 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 http://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 White House Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/engage. 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.
    The Department's dedication to involve the public in the regulatory

[[Page 28737]]

process includes a number of ongoing successful public engagement 
efforts. These efforts 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 considering input received through 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 Department has developed another innovative way to engage the 
public in the regulatory review process. 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. ASRAC 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 previous update reports, available at http://www.energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review. New retrospective successes from DOE's March 2016 and July 2015 
reports are described below.
    (1) DOE published a proposed rule to amend its regulations for the 
timely coordination of Federal Authorizations for proposed interstate 
electric transmission facilities pursuant to section 216(h) of the 
Federal Power Act. This rulemaking will improve the pre-application 
procedures and result in more efficient processing of applications. The 
proposed rule implements a number of Presidential directives, including 
the Presidential Memorandum on ``Speeding Infrastructure Development 
through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental 
Review'' (August 31, 2011), Executive Order 13604, ``Improving 
Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure 
Projects'' (March 22, 2012), the Presidential Memorandum on 
``Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, 
Policies, and Procedures '' (May 17, 2013, and the Presidential 
Memorandum on ``Transforming our Nation's Electric Grid Through 
Improved Siting, Permitting, and Review'' (June 7, 2013).
    (2) DOE published a final rule amending the administrative 
requirements for grants and cooperative agreements with for-profit 
organizations. Specifically, the rule modifies title provisions and 
requirements related to the handling of real property and equipment 
acquired with federal funds. The rule also adds provisions related to 
export control requirements and supporting U.S. manufacturing, 
reporting on utilization of subject inventions, novation of financial 
assistance agreements, and changes of control of recipients. The rule 
will reduce the burden on grant recipients because they will need to 
file only UCC-1s and will not have to negotiate a separate ``priority'' 
term in their individual grant agreements. As part of its retrospective 
review efforts, DOE will continue to consider input from affected 
parties on ways to reduce burdens on its grant recipients and entities 
with which DOE enters cooperative agreements.
    (3) DOE issued a comprehensive update of regulations in 10 CFR part 
810 concerning Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities, making 
the regulations consistent with current global civil nuclear trade 
practices and nonproliferation norms. DOE has also initiated a process 
improvement program to reduce the public burden associated with nuclear 
technology export authorizations, to reduce specific authorization 
processing time, and to create a guide to part 810 and an electronic 
application and tracking (e-810) system. Since the Part 810 final rule 
went into effect on March 25, 2015, DOE has created guidance and FAQs, 
which are available online. As a result of the rule revisions, DOE 
estimates a net benefit, for the period 2013-2030, of $19,896,142 per 
year at a 7-percent discount rate and $19,253,076 per year at a 3-
percent discount rate. The process improvement program is expected to 
reduce the time needed for DOE to process nuclear export authorizations 
and provide more transparency to submitters regarding process steps and 
the associated time needed to complete each step.

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?
    (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?

[[Page 28738]]

    (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 http://www.regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 3, 2016.
Steven P. Croley,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-10956 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P