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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

75798 

Vol. 76, No. 233 

Monday, December 5, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

5 CFR Chapter XXIII 

10 CFR Chapters II, III, X 

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 

(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expanded, or repealed.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. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

January 4, 2012. Reply comments are 

requested on or before February 3, 2012. 

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. 

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. 

That Department’s plan for 

retrospective review of its regulations 

can be accessed at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/ 

actions/21st-century-regulatory-system. 

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. 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 

agencies, consistent with applicable 

law, 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. 

At the time of issuance of the 

Executive Order, the Department took 

two immediate steps to launch its 

retrospective review of existing 

regulatory and reporting requirements. 

First, the Department issued a Request 

for Information (RFI) seeking public 

comment on how best to review its 

existing regulations and to identify 

whether any of its existing regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed. Second, the 

Department created a link on the Web 

page of DOE’s Office of the General 

Counsel to an email 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. 

Additionally, and based on comments 

received through the RFI, the 

Department developed a plan for the 

periodic review of its existing 

regulations and reporting obligations. 

That plan was released in August 2011 

and can be accessed at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/ 

actions/21st-century-regulatory-system. 

The Department is committed to 

maintaining a consistent culture of 

retrospective review and analysis. Its 

plan sets forth a process for identifying 

significant rules that are obsolete, 

unnecessary, unjustified, excessively 

burdensome, or counterproductive. 

Once such rules have been identified, 

DOE will, after considering public input 

on any proposed change, determine 

what action is necessary or appropriate. 

Moreover, DOE’s initial identification of 

rules meriting review does not represent 

the completion of the retrospective 

review process. Instead, 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, while the 

Department is always open to receiving 

information about the impact of its 

regulations, it is publishing today’s RFI 

to solicit public input again. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 75799 

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. 

List of Questions for Commenters 

The following list of questions 

represents an attempt by the Department 

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 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? 

(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. 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 November 

28, 2011. 

Sean A. Lev, 

Acting General Counsel, Department of 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31115 Filed 12–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

7 CFR Part 400 

[Docket No. FCIC–11–0009] 

RIN 0563–AC26 

General Administrative Regulations; 

Mutual Consent Cancellation; Food 

Security Act of 1985, Implementation; 

Denial of Benefits; and Ineligibility for 

Programs Under the Federal Crop 

Insurance Act 

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC) proposes to amend 

the General Administrative Regulations 

to revise Subpart U—Ineligibility for 

Programs under the Federal Crop 

Insurance Act to eliminate 

redundancies, improve clarity, remove 

or update obsolete references, and add 

references to other provisions regarding 

ineligibility for Federal crop insurance. 

In addition, FCIC proposes to remove 

Subpart C—General Administrative 

Regulations; Mutual Consent 

Cancellation and Subpart F—Food 

Security Act of 1985, Implementation; 

Denial of Benefits. The changes will 

apply for the 2013 and succeeding crop 

years. 

DATES: Written comments and opinions 

on this proposed rule will be accepted 

until close of business February 3, 2012 

and will be considered when the rule is 

to be made final. Comments on the 

information collection requirements 

must be received on or before February 

3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: FCIC prefers that comments 

be submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may 

submit comments, identified by Docket 

ID No. FCIC–11–0009, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Director, Product 

Administration and Standards Division, 

Risk Management Agency, United States 

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 

419205, Kansas City, MO 64133–6205. 

All comments received, including 

those received by mail, will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, and can 

be accessed by the public. All comments 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this rule. 

For detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information, 

see http://www.regulations.gov. If you 

are submitting comments electronically 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

and want to attach a document, we ask 

that it be in a text-based format. If you 

want to attach a document that is a 

scanned Adobe PDF file, it must be 

scanned as text and not as an image, 

thus allowing FCIC to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions. 

For questions regarding attaching a 

document that is a scanned Adobe PDF 

file, please contact the Risk 

Management Agency (RMA) Web 

Content Team at (816) 823–4694 or by 

email at rmaweb.content@rma.usda.gov. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS