Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Notices 6123 

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 http://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 

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 

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: http:// 

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 http:// 

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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
6124 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / 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 

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 

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 http:// 

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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES