9988 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: ImprovingRegulations.

SuggestionBox@epa.gov 

• Fax: 202–566–9744 

• 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. 

• 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: 

ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@

epa.gov. 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: 

ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@

epa.gov. 

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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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: 

• EPA must uphold its mission to 

protect human health and the 

environment. 

• EPA’s plan will be tailored to reflect 

its resources, rulemaking history, and 

volume. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• How should EPA identify candidate 

regulations for periodic retrospective 

review? 

• What criteria should EPA use to 

prioritize regulations for review? 

• How should EPA’s review plan be 

integrated with its existing requirements 

to conduct retrospective reviews? 

• How often should EPA solicit input 

from the public? 

• 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: 

• 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? 

• 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? 

• 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. 

• 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: 

• Which regulations have exacerbated 

existing impacts or created new impacts 

on vulnerable populations such as lowincome 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? 

• Which regulations have failed to 

protect vulnerable populations 

(minority or low-income, children or 

elderly) and why? 

• 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: 

• 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? 

• 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? 

• 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? 

• Which regulations or reporting 

requirements have become outdated? 

How can they be modernized to 

accomplish their regulatory objectives 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS

9990 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

better? What data support this? What 

suggestions do you have for how the 

Agency could change the regulations? 

• 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: 

• Which regulations impose burden 

on state, local or tribal governments? 

How could these regulations be changed 

to reduce the burden without 

compromising environmental 

protection? 

• 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: 

• 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? 

• 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? 

• 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: 

• Which regulations have high costs 

and low benefits? What data support 

this? 

• 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: 

• 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? 

• 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: 

• 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? 

• 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: 

• 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? 

• How can regulations spur new 

markets, technologies and new jobs? 

What suggestions do you have to 

support this idea? 

• 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? 

• Where can EPA examine marketbased incentives as an option to 

regulation? What program would you 

design that utilizes market-based 

incentives and ensures environmental 

objectives are still met? 

• How can a regulation be improved 

so as to create, expand or transform a 

market? 

• 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. 

• ‘‘Improving Regulations: Air’’ 

docket—EPA–HQ–OA–2011–0155 

• ‘‘Improving Regulations: Pesticides’’ 

docket—EPA–HQ–OA–2011–0157 

• ‘‘Improving Regulations: Toxic 

Substances’’ docket—EPA–HQ–OA– 

2011–0159 

• ‘‘Improving Regulations: Waste’’ 

docket—EPA–HQ–OA–2011–0160 

• ‘‘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: 

• Pertains to more than one issue/ 

impact and/or program area. 

• 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS