[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9988-9990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4152]



[[Page 9988]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Chapters I through VII

[FRL-9270-8; EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0154, -0155, -0156, -0157, -0158, -0159, -
0160, -0161, -0162, -0163, -0164, -0165, -0166, -0167, -0168]


Improving EPA Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for comment; notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' and called on 
all Federal agencies to conduct a ``retrospective analysis of rules 
that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 
burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in 
accordance with what has been learned.'' EPA seeks public input on the 
design of a plan to use for periodic retrospective review of its 
regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2011. A public 
meeting will be held on March 14, 2011 in Arlington, VA.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0154, -0155, -0156, -0157, -0158, -0159, -0160, -0161, -
0162, -0163, -0164, -0165, -0166, -0167 or -0168 by any one of the 
following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bff6d2cfcdd0c9d6d1d8eddad8cad3decbd6d0d1cc91eccad8d8dacccbd6d0d1fdd0c7ffdacfde91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c881a5b8baa7bea1a6af9aadafbda4a9bca1a7a6bbe69bbdafafadbbbca1a7a68aa7b088adb8a9e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>
    <bullet> Fax: 202-566-9744
    <bullet> Mail: Send a copy of your comments and any enclosures to: 
Improving Regulations Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
Docket Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, 
DC 20460.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: Improving Regulations Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2011-
0154, -0155, -0156, -0157, -0158, -0159, -0160, -0161, -0162, -0163, -
0164, -0165, -0166, -0167, -0168. EPA's policy is that all comments 
received will be included in the public docket without change and may 
be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov website is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting 
comments, go to Section II of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Improving 
Regulations Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Improving Regulations Docket is (202) 566-
1752.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this 
document, please contact Stuart Miles-McLean, Office of Regulatory 
Policy and Management (1803A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
564-6581; fax number: 202-564-7322; e-mail address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f36120f0d10091611182d1a180a131e0b1610110c512c0a18181a0c0b1610113d10073f1a0f1e51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="357c5845475a435c5b52675052405954415c5a5b461b664052525046415c5a5b775a4d755045541b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>. If you have questions 
concerning the public meetings, contact Lucinda Power, Office of 
Regulatory Policy and Management (1806A), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: 202-566-0356; fax number: 202-564-0965; e-mail address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#125b7f62607d647b7c75407775677e73667b7d7c613c416775757761667b7d7c507d6a527762733c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="125b7f62607d647b7c75407775677e73667b7d7c613c416775757761667b7d7c507d6a527762733c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

    EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. Among 
the Agency's goals are taking action on climate change and improving 
air quality; protecting America's waters; cleaning up communities and 
advancing sustainable development; ensuring the safety of chemicals and 
preventing pollution; and enforcing environmental laws. As part of 
these efforts, EPA has developed a number of regulations that protect 
Americans from significant risks to human health and the environment 
where they live, learn and work.

 A. Submitting Comments

    At this time, EPA seeks help in designing the plan it will use for 
periodic review of regulations. Section II of this notice provides 
several specific comment categories to focus the Agency's review based 
upon specific regulatory impacts or program areas. In the following 
section you will find a non-exhaustive list of issues or impacts to 
help you formulate your ideas, though it is not intended to restrict 
the issues that you may wish to address.
    Please be as specific as possible when submitting your comments. In 
offering your input, EPA requests that you include an explanation as to 
why you believe a regulation should be modified, streamlined, expanded 
or repealed; any data or other information that supports your 
explanation; and suggestions on how the Agency can better achieve the 
regulatory program's objective. Please provide citation if you 
reference a specific regulation.
    While it is EPA's aim is to define a method and schedule for 
periodically identifying certain significant rules that warrant repeal 
or modification because they are no longer justified or necessary, this 
review may also reveal that an existing rule is needed, but has not 
operated as well as expected, and that a stronger, expanded, or 
somewhat different approach is justified.

[[Page 9989]]

    EPA is accepting your comments from now through 03/20/2011. 
Although the Agency won't be able to respond to every individual 
comment, your input is valued and your ideas merit careful 
consideration. By late May or early June, you will have the chance to 
read our retrospective review plan at http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations, as well as an initial list of regulations that we 
plan to review first.
    As you comment, EPA requests that you keep these key considerations 
in mind:
    <bullet> EPA must uphold its mission to protect human health and 
the environment.
    <bullet> EPA's plan will be tailored to reflect its resources, 
rulemaking history, and volume.
    <bullet> A number of laws already direct the Agency to regularly 
review certain regulations. Your input is requested on developing a 
plan that is integrated with those existing requirements.
    <bullet> See http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations for additional 
information and updates.

B. Public Meetings

    EPA will hold a public meeting at Hilton Arlington, 950 N Stafford 
Street, Arlington, VA on March 14, 2011. Registration information and 
updates are available at http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations/meeting.html. In addition, EPA plans to host a variety of meetings in 
regional offices in March 2011. The specific location names and 
addresses for these regional meetings will be posted as they become 
available at http:/www.epa.gov//improvingregulations/meeting.html.

II. Design of Plan for Periodic Retrospective Review

    EPA's plan will create a defined method and schedule for 
periodically identifying certain significant regulations that are 
obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or 
counterproductive. Also, it will consider how best to strengthen, 
complement or modernize rules where necessary or appropriate--
including, if relevant, undertaking new rulemaking. To help EPA design 
the plan, you are invited to provide input on specific considerations 
related to how the agency should conduct these periodic retrospective 
reviews of existing regulations.
    To assist you in focusing your comments or recommendations, EPA has 
provided three categories relating to issue/impact, program area, or a 
multipurpose general area. These are not intended to restrict the 
issues that you may wish to address. The following sections present a 
series of questions under these categories as a guide for making 
recommendations on the design of EPA's periodic retrospective review 
plan. If you wish to submit comments, please address them to the 
appropriate docket labeled in each section or by mail as described in 
the ADDRESSES section above.
    The first set of questions relating to the design plan are not 
intended to be restrictive but are meant to assist you in formulating 
your comments.
    <bullet> How should EPA identify candidate regulations for periodic 
retrospective review?
    <bullet> What criteria should EPA use to prioritize regulations for 
review?
    <bullet> How should EPA's review plan be integrated with its 
existing requirements to conduct retrospective reviews?
    <bullet> How often should EPA solicit input from the public?
    <bullet> What should be the timing of any given regulatory review 
(e.g., should a regulation be in effect for a certain amount of time 
before it is reviewed)?

A. Issue or Impact Areas for Consideration

    To more specifically focus your response, the following questions 
listed by issue or impact area may assist but are not meant to limit 
you in providing EPA input on its retrospective review plan.
1. Integration and Innovation
    Submit a comment on integrating regulations or achieving innovation 
to the ``Improving Regulations: Integration and Innovation'' docket 
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0161). Use the following questions to guide your 
comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations could achieve the intended environmental 
results using less costly methods, technology, or innovative 
techniques? How could the regulations be changed? What data support 
this?
    <bullet> Which regulations could be improved by harmonizing 
requirements across programs or agencies to better meet the regulatory 
objectives? What suggestions do you have for how the Agency can better 
harmonize these requirements?
    <bullet> Which regulations have requirements that are overlapping 
and could be streamlined or eliminated? What suggestions do you have 
for how the Agency could modify the regulations? Be specific about how 
burden can be reduced from gained efficiencies related to streamlining 
the requirements.
    <bullet> What opportunities exist for the Agency to explore 
alternatives to existing regulations? How can these alternatives be 
designed to ensure that environmental objectives are still met?
2. Environmental Justice/Children's Health/Elderly
    Submit a comment related to environmental justice, children's 
health, or the elderly to the ``Improving Regulations: EJ, Children & 
Elderly'' docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0168). Use the following questions to 
guide your comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations have exacerbated existing impacts or 
created new impacts on vulnerable populations such as low-income or 
minority populations, children or the elderly? Which ones and how? What 
suggestions do you have for how the Agency could change the 
regulations? What data support this?
    <bullet> Which regulations have failed to protect vulnerable 
populations (minority or low-income, children or elderly) and why?
    <bullet> Which regulations could be streamlined, modified, 
tightened, or expanded to mitigate or prevent impacts to vulnerable 
populations (minority or low-income, children or elderly)? What 
suggestions do you have for changing the regulations? What data support 
this?
3. Science/Obsolete/Technology Outdated
    Submit a comment related to the science in regulations that you 
believe is outdated or which relies on outdated technology. Use the 
``Improving Regulations: Science/Obsolete/Technology Outdated'' docket 
(EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0162) and the following questions to guide your 
comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations could be modified because the underlying 
scientific data has changed since the regulation was issued, and the 
change supports revision to the original regulation? What data support 
this? What suggestions do you have for changing the regulations?
    <bullet> Which regulations have achieved their original objective 
and have now become unnecessary or obsolete? What data support this? 
What suggestions do you have for how the Agency could modify, 
streamline, expand, or repeal the regulation?
    <bullet> Have circumstances surrounding any regulations changed 
significantly such that the regulation's requirements should be 
reconsidered? Which regulations? What data support this? What 
suggestions can you provide the Agency about how these regulations 
could be changed?
    <bullet> Which regulations or reporting requirements have become 
outdated? How can they be modernized to accomplish their regulatory 
objectives

[[Page 9990]]

better? What data support this? What suggestions do you have for how 
the Agency could change the regulations?
    <bullet> Which regulations have new technologies that can be 
leveraged to modify, streamline, expand or repeal existing 
requirements? What data support this? What suggestions do you have for 
how the Agency could change these regulations?
4. State, Local and Tribal Governments
    Submit a comment related to state/local/tribal government issues in 
the ``Improving Regulations: State, Local and Tribal governments'' 
docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0163). Use the following questions to guide your 
comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations impose burden on state, local or tribal 
governments? How could these regulations be changed to reduce the 
burden without compromising environmental protection?
    <bullet> What opportunities are there within existing regulations 
to better partner with state, local and/or tribal governments? If so, 
do you have suggestions for how to better utilize those opportunities?
5. Least Burdensome/Flexible Approaches
    Provide comment on a regulation that is burdensome or could be more 
flexible in the ``Improving Regulations: Least Burden/Flexible 
Approaches'' docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0165). Use the following questions 
to guide your comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations have proven to be excessively 
burdensome? What data support this? How many facilities are affected? 
What suggestions do you have for reducing the burden and maintaining 
environmental protection?
    <bullet> Which regulations impose paperwork activities (reporting, 
recordkeeping, or 3rd party notifications) that would benefit from 
online reporting or electronic recordkeeping? Tell us whether regulated 
entities have flexibility in providing the required 3rd party 
disclosure or notification. What data support this? What suggestions do 
you have for how the Agency could change the regulation?
    <bullet> Which regulations could be made more flexible within the 
existing legal framework? What data support this? What suggestions do 
you have for how the Agency could change the regulations to be more 
flexible?
6. Benefits and Costs
    Submit a comment related to benefits and costs in the ``Improving 
Regulations: Benefits and Costs'' docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0158). Use the 
following questions to guide your comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations have high costs and low benefits? What 
data support this?
    <bullet> Which regulations could better maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity)? What data 
support this? What quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs 
justify your suggestion (recognizing that some benefits and costs are 
difficult to quantify)?
7. Small Business
    Submit a comment related to small business impacts in the 
``Improving Regulations: Small Business'' docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0164). 
Use the following questions to guide your comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations have large impacts on small businesses? 
How could these regulations be changed to reduce the impact while 
maintaining environmental protection? Are there flexible approaches 
that might help reduce these impacts? Which of these regulations have 
high costs and low benefits? What data support this?
    <bullet> Are there any regulations where flexible approaches for 
small businesses have proven successful and could serve as a model? 
Where else and how could these approaches be utilized?
8. Compliance
    Submit a comment related to compliance in the ``Improving 
Regulations: Compliance'' docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0166). Use the 
following questions to guide your comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations have complicated or time consuming 
requirements? To what extent are alternative compliance tools 
available? Could the regulations be modified to improve compliance? 
What data support this?
    <bullet> Which regulations or regulated sectors have particularly 
high compliance? How could the factors or approaches that lead to high 
compliance be utilized in other regulations and sectors? What data is 
available to support this?
9. Economic Conditions/Market
    Submit a comment about economic conditions and/or markets in the 
``Improving Regulations: Economic Conditions/Market'' docket (EPA-HQ-
OA-2011-0167). Use the following questions to guide your comments:
    <bullet> Which regulations have impacted an industry sector(s) that 
was hard hit by high unemployment in the past three years? What changes 
to the regulation would promote economic growth or job creation without 
compromising environmental protection? What data support this?
    <bullet> How can regulations spur new markets, technologies and new 
jobs? What suggestions do you have to support this idea?
    <bullet> Which regulations have impeded economic growth in an 
affected industry sector? What information is available to support 
this? How could the regulations be modified to improve both economic 
growth and environmental protection? What data support this?
    <bullet> Where can EPA examine market-based incentives as an option 
to regulation? What program would you design that utilizes market-based 
incentives and ensures environmental objectives are still met?
    <bullet> How can a regulation be improved so as to create, expand 
or transform a market?
    <bullet> Which regulations could be modified so as to invite 
public/private partnerships, and how?

B. Program Area

    Use one of the dockets listed below to provide comments related to 
a specific program area.
    <bullet> ``Improving Regulations: Air'' docket--EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0155
    <bullet> ``Improving Regulations: Pesticides'' docket--EPA-HQ-OA-
2011-0157
    <bullet> ``Improving Regulations: Toxic Substances'' docket--EPA-
HQ-OA-2011-0159
    <bullet> ``Improving Regulations: Waste'' docket--EPA-HQ-OA-2011-
0160
    <bullet> ``Improving Regulations: Water'' docket--EPA-HQ-OA-2011-
0154

C. General Category

    Use the Improving Regulations: General docket (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156) 
to submit an idea for how best to promote retrospective analysis of 
rules. This docket may also be used for any comment that:
    <bullet> Pertains to more than one issue/impact and/or program 
area.
    <bullet> Doesn't relate to any of the other docket categories 
listed in this section.
    EPA welcomes comment and feedback from all parties on the issues 
listed herein. The Agency is collecting this information for its 
planning purposes and is not bound to further action or response. All 
submissions will be made publically available on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: February 18, 2011.
Michael Goo,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-4152 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>