### 5715 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ 2011-regulatory-action-plans/DepartmentofLabor PreliminaryRegulatoryReformPlan.pdf. 

### R EGULATORY 

### R EVIEW 

### M ODIFIED 

### TEN 

### -YEAR 

### SCHEDULE

### —Continued

16 CFR

part Topic Year to review.

425 ............ Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans .................................................................... ........................ 2024. 435 ............ Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise ............................................................................. .......................... 2024. 424 ............ Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices [Unavailability Rule] ..................................... ...... 2024.

[FR Doc. 2015–01966 Filed 2–2–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6750–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF LABOR**

**5 CFR Chapter XLII**

**20 CFR Chapters IV, V, VI, VII, and IX**

**29 CFR Subtitle A and Chapters II, IV, V, XVII, and XXV** 

**30 CFR Chapter I**

**41 CFR Chapters 50, 60, and 61**

**48 CFR Chapter 29**

**Retrospective Review and Regulatory Flexibility** 

**AGENCY :**  Office of the Secretary, Labor.

**ACTION :**  Request for information.

**SUMMARY :**  In response to the President’s Executive Order 13563 on improving regulation and regulatory review, and Executive Order 13610 on identifying and reducing regulatory burden, the Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) is continuing to review its existing significant regulations that impose large, ongoing burdens on the public. The purpose of this document is to invite public comment on how the Department can improve any of its significant regulations by modernizing, modifying, redesigning, streamlining, expanding, or repealing them.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments through the Department’s Regulations
Portal at http://www.dol.gov/ regulations/regreview/.

All comments will be available for public inspection at http://www.dol.gov/ regulations/regreview/.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Pamela Peters, Program Analyst, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room S– 2312, Washington, DC 20210, peters.pamela@dol.gov, (202) 693–5959 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing impairments may call 1–800–877–8339 (TTY/TDD). **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.’’ The Order explains the Administration’s goal of creating a regulatory system that protects ‘‘public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation’’ while using ‘‘the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools to achieve regulatory ends.’’ The Executive Order required agencies to develop and submit a preliminary plan within 120 days from the January 18 issuance date that explained how each agency reviewed existing significant regulations to identify whether any regulations may be made more effective

or less burdensome.

On March 21, 2011, the Department published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register seeking public input to inform development of its Preliminary Plan and providing an opportunity for the public to identify potential regulations. The Department published its Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules on May 20, 2011. 1

The Department launched a second interactive Web site on June 2, 2011 and requested public input on certain aspects of the Preliminary Plan.

After receipt and consideration of comments, the Department issued its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules in August 2011.

On May 12, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13610, ‘‘Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens.’’ This Order explained that ‘‘it is particularly important for agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and whether they

should be modified or streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.’’ Since August 2011, the Department has issued six updates to its August 2011

Plan. Request for Comments
The Department recognizes the importance of conducting retrospective review of regulations and is once again seeking public comment on how the Department can increase the effectiveness of its significant regulations while minimizing the burden on regulated entities. The Department recognizes that the regulated community, academia, and the public at large have an understanding of its programs and their implementing regulations, and therefore is requesting public comment on how the Department can prepare workers for better jobs, improve workplace safetyand health, promote fair and highquality work environments, and secure a wide range of benefits for employees and those who are seeking work, all in ways that are more effective and least
burdensome.

This request for public input will inform development of the Department’s future plans to review its existing significant regulations. To facilitate receipt of the information, the Department has created an Internet portal specifically designed to capture your input and suggestions, http:// www.dol.gov/regulations/regreview/. The portal contains a series of questions to gather information on how DOL can best meet the requirements of the Executive Order. The portal will be open to receive comments from January 28, 2015 through February 25, 2015.

Questions for the Public

• What regulations and reporting requirements should be considered for review, modification due to conflicts, inconsistencies, or duplication among the regulations or requirements of the Department’s agencies or other federal agencies?

• What reporting requirements and
information collections can be streamlined or reduced in frequency while achieving the same level of protections for workers, job-seekers, and retirees? Are there less costly methods, advances in technology, or innovative techniques that can be leveraged toward these purposes?

• What regulatory reforms may require short-term cost increases to theregulated entities while creating longerVerDate Sep<11>2014 13:27 Feb 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03FEP1.SGM 03FEP1rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

### 5716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules

term savings, for example, through the adoption of new technologies? What information, data, or technical assistance do regulated entities need in
order to better assess these opportunities?

• How should the Department capture information about changes in firm and market behavior in response to a regulation?

• What data or other indicators suggest that the estimated costs and benefits of an existing regulation should be reviewed? What other strategies exist for increasing the flexibility of regulations without limiting important protections?

• What information, data, or other
technical assistance do stakeholdersrequire in order to better assess the longterm impact of these reforms upon such protections?

The Department is especially
interested in candidates for review for which there is evidence of rapid technological change in a sector that
could influence the structure and need for the regulation, whether the chosen regulatory approach will impose large ongoing costs on regulated entities, whether the agency is regulating in an area of significant uncertainty that may be lowered with a future retrospective study, and other similar conditions.

The Department intends the questions on the portal to initiate public dialogue,
and does not intend to restrict the issues that may be raised or addressed. The questions were developed with the intent to probe a range of areas, including tools that can be used to prioritize regulations for review; strategies that can be used to increase flexibility of regulations; and measures to ensure scientific integrity of data.

Please note that these questions do not pertain to DOL rulemakings currently open for public comment. To comment on an open rulemaking, please

visit regulations.gov and submit comments by the deadline indicated in that rulemaking. Comments that pertain to rulemakings currently open for public comment will not be addressed by the Department in this venue, which focuses on retrospective review.

When addressing the questions in the portal, the Department requests that commenters identify with specificity the regulation or reporting requirement at issue, providing legal citation(s) where available. The Department also requests that submitters provide, in as much detail as possible, an explanation of 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. Whenever possible, please provide empirical evidence and data to support your

response.

The Department will consider public comments as we update our plan to review the Department’s significant rules. The Department is issuing this request solely to seek useful information as we update our review plan. While responses to this request do not bind the Department to any further actions related to the response, all submissions will be made available to the public on http://www.dol.gov/regulations/ regreview/.

Authority: E.O. 13653, 76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011; E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993.

Dated: January 28, 2015.
Christopher P. Lu,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015–01916 Filed 2–2–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4510–23–P**

**LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION**

**45 CFR Part 1640**

**Application of Federal Law to LSC Recipients** 

**AGENCY :**  Legal Services Corporation.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

**SUMMARY :**  This proposed rule updates the Legal Services Corporation (LSC or Corporation) regulation on the application of Federal law to LSC recipients. The FY 1996 appropriations act (incorporated in LSC’s appropriations by reference annually thereafter) subjects LSC recipients to Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal funds. This proposed rule will provide recipients with notice of the applicable Federal laws each recipient must agree to be subject to under this rule, the consequences of a violation of an applicable Federal law, and where LSC will maintain the list of applicable
laws.

**DATES :**  Comments must be submitted by March 5, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Written comments must be submitted to Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 337–6519 (fax) or lscrulemaking@lsc.gov. Electronic submissions are preferred via
email with attachments in Acrobat PDF format. Written comments sent to any
other address or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered by LSC.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295–1563 (phone), (202) 337–6519 (fax), or lscrulemaking@ lsc.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Section 504(a)(19) of LSC’s FY 1996 appropriations act required LSC recipients to enter into a contract that subjected recipients to ‘‘all provisions of Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal funds.’’ Sec. 504(a)(19), Public Law 104–134, title V; 110 Stat. 1321. By its terms, a violation of Sec. 504(a)(19) renders any LSC grant or contract null and void. The provision has been incorporated by reference into each of LSC’s annual appropriations act since. Accordingly, the preamble and text of this proposed rule continue to refer to the appropriate section number of the FY 1996 appropriations act.

The Corporation first issued 45 CFR part 1640 as an interim rule in 1996 to implement Sec. 504(a)(19). 61 FR 45760 (Aug. 29, 1996). The interim rule was put in place to provide immediate guidance to LSC recipients on legislation that was already in effect and carried significant penalties for noncompliance. Id. In the preamble to the interim rule, LSC announced that it was interpreting the statutory phrase ‘‘all provisions of Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal funds’’ to mean ‘‘with respect to [a recipient’s] LSC funds, all programs should be subject to Federal laws which address issues of waste, fraud and abuse of
Federal funds.’’ Id. LSC based its interpretation on legislative history that appeared to limit the applicable laws to those dealing with fraud, waste, and
abuse of Federal funds.

In particular, LSC relied on two congressional documents to support its interpretation. First, the Corporation cited to the House Report for H.R. 2076, which was a prior effort to enact a provision similar to section 504(a)(19). The relevant language in that report
stated:

[S]ection 504(20) requires all programs receiving Federal funds to comply with Federal statutes and regulations governing waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal funds.
H. Rep. No. 104–196, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 116 (July 1995) (emphasis added). Second, LSC cited section 5 of H.R. 1806, the Legal Services Reform Act of 1995, which was an unsuccessful attempt to revise the LSC Act. As an extension of his remarks introducing H.R. 1806, Rep. McCollum submitted a partial summary of the bill, including a
discussion of section 5 entitled