81 FR 70060 - Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations-A Focus on Burden Reduction; Request for Public Input

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 196 (October 11, 2016)

Page Range		70060-70061
FR Document		2016-24344

The Department of Homeland Security (Department or DHS) is seeking comments from the public on specific existing significant DHS regulations that the Department should consider as candidates for streamlining or repeal. These efforts will help us ensure that DHS satisfies its statutory obligations and achieves its regulatory objectives without imposing unwarranted costs. DHS is seeking this input pursuant to the process identified in DHS's Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations. According to the Final Plan, DHS will initiate its retrospective review process, on a three-year cycle, by seeking input from the public. Input that will be most helpful to DHS is input that identifies specific regulations and includes actionable data supporting the nomination of specific regulations for retrospective review.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70060-70061]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24344]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 70060]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

6 CFR Chapter I

8 CFR Chapter I

19 CFR Chapter I

33 CFR Chapter I

44 CFR Chapter I

46 CFR Chapters I and III

49 CFR Chapter XII

[Docket No. DHS-2016-0072]


Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations--A Focus on Burden 
Reduction; Request for Public Input

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Retrospective Review Initiative and request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (Department or DHS) is 
seeking comments from the public on specific existing significant DHS 
regulations that the Department should consider as candidates for 
streamlining or repeal. These efforts will help us ensure that DHS 
satisfies its statutory obligations and achieves its regulatory 
objectives without imposing unwarranted costs.
    DHS is seeking this input pursuant to the process identified in 
DHS's Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations. 
According to the Final Plan, DHS will initiate its retrospective review 
process, on a three-year cycle, by seeking input from the public. Input 
that will be most helpful to DHS is input that identifies specific 
regulations and includes actionable data supporting the nomination of 
specific regulations for retrospective review.

DATES: Written comments are requested on or before November 10, 2016 
Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-
2016-0072, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlotte Skey, Senior Regulatory 
Economist, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by 
submitting written data, views, or arguments using the method 
identified in the ADDRESSES section.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

    On January 18, 2011, the President issued E.O. 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. 76 FR 3821. The Executive Order required each 
Executive Branch agency to develop a preliminary plan to periodically 
review its existing regulations to determine whether any regulations 
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make 
the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in 
achieving its regulatory objectives.
    DHS's approach to conducting retrospective review focuses on public 
openness and transparency and on the critical role of public input in 
conducting retrospective review. To that end, DHS published a notice 
and request for comments in the Federal Register on March 14, 2011. 76 
FR 13526. In that notice, DHS solicited public input on how DHS should 
structure its retrospective review and which DHS rules would benefit 
from retrospective review. On June 6, 2011, DHS published a notice of 
availability; request for comments announcing the availability of, and 
seeking comment on, its Preliminary Plan for the Retrospective Review 
of Existing Regulations. 76 FR 32331. DHS considered this public input 
as it developed a Final Plan.
    On August 22, 2011, DHS issued its Final Plan for the Retrospective 
Review of Existing Regulations (Final Plan or DHS Final Plan). The DHS 
Final Plan is available online at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-ogc-final-retrospective-review-plan-8-22-11-final.pdf. The Final 
Plan established a process for identifying regulations that may be 
obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or 
counterproductive. Under the Final Plan, DHS (and/or a DHS component) 
will publish a notice in the Federal Register every three years seeking 
public input regarding the regulations that should be subject to 
retrospective review. DHS published its previous Federal Register 
notice seeking such public input on February 26, 2014. 79 FR 10760. 
Today's notice, which requests nominations for existing significant DHS 
regulations that DHS should streamline or repeal, fulfills the DHS 
commitment to seek public input via the Federal Register on a three-
year cycle.
    DHS continually evaluates its regulatory program for rules that are 
candidates for retrospective review; DHS does so through legally 
mandated retrospective review requirements (e.g., Unified Agenda 
reviews, and reviews under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act) and through other informal and long-established mechanisms (e.g., 
use of Advisory Councils, feedback from DHS field personnel, input from 
internal working groups, and outreach to regulated entities). This 
Federal Register notice supplements these existing extensive DHS 
retrospective review efforts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Twice a year, DHS posts a progress report on the DHS Web 
site; the report provides the status of DHS regulations currently 
under retrospective review. DHS published its most recent progress 
report in July 2016, and the report is available on the DHS Web site 
at http://www.dhs.gov/latest-progress under ``DHS July 2016 
Retrospective Review Plan Report.''

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

[[Page 70061]]

II. DHS's Regulatory Responsibility

    DHS's mission is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and 
resilient against terrorism and other hazards. The Department carries 
out its mission through the Office of the Secretary and its components, 
including the following operational components: U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, and Transportation Security 
Administration.
    Leading a unified national effort, DHS has five core missions: (1) 
Prevent terrorism and enhance security; (2) secure and manage our 
borders; (3) enforce and administer our immigration laws; (4) safeguard 
and secure cyberspace; and (5) ensure resilience to disasters. To 
further these areas, DHS has responsibility for a broad range of 
regulations. For example, to secure and manage our borders, DHS 
regulates people and goods entering and exiting the United States. DHS, 
to combat terrorism, regulates aviation security, high-risk chemical 
facilities, and infrastructure protection. DHS also issues regulations 
to administer immigration and citizenship benefits as well as 
regulations covering maritime safety and environmental protection. 
Finally, DHS promulgates a wide range of regulations concerning 
disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.

III. Request for Input

A. Importance of Public Feedback

    A central tenet of the DHS Final Plan is the critical and essential 
role of public input in driving and focusing DHS retrospective review. 
Because the impacts and effects of a regulation tend to be widely 
dispersed in society, members of the public--especially the regulated 
entities of rulemakings--are likely to have useful information, data, 
and perspectives on the benefits and burdens of existing DHS 
regulations. Given this importance of public input, the primary factor 
for regulation selection in DHS retrospective review is public 
feedback.

B. Maximizing the Value of Public Feedback

    This notice contains a list of questions, the answers to which will 
assist DHS in identifying those regulations that may be streamlined or 
repealed in order to reduce burden. DHS encourages public comment on 
these questions and seeks any other data commenters believe are 
relevant to DHS's retrospective review efforts. The DHS Final Plan 
provides instruction on the type of feedback that is most useful to the 
Department.

    DHS will afford significantly greater weight to feedback that 
identifies specific regulations, includes actionable data, or 
provides viable alternatives that meet statutory obligations and 
regulatory objectives. Feedback that simply states that a 
stakeholder feels strongly that DHS should change a regulation, but 
does not contain specific information on how the proposed change 
would impact the costs and benefits of the regulation, is much less 
useful to DHS. DHS is looking for new information and new economic 
data to support any proposed changes. [emphasis added]

    We highlight a few of those points here, noting that comments that 
will be most useful to DHS are those that are guided by the below 
principles. Commenters should consider these principles as they answer 
and respond to the questions in this notice.
     For this notice, DHS is focusing on reducing the burdens 
of its regulations and is not seeking comment on actions that might 
increase the net cost of the DHS regulatory program.
     Commenters should identify, with specificity, the 
regulation at issue, providing the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
cite where available.
     Commenters should provide, in as much detail as possible, 
an explanation why a regulation should be streamlined or repealed in 
order to reduce burdens, as well as specific suggestions of ways the 
Department can better achieve its regulatory objectives.
     Commenters should provide specific data that document the 
costs, burdens, and benefits of existing requirements. Commenters might 
also address how DHS can best obtain and consider accurate, objective 
information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing 
regulations and whether there are existing sources of data that DHS can 
use to evaluate the post-promulgation effects of its regulations over 
time.
     Particularly where comments relate to a rule's costs or 
benefits, comments will be most useful if there are data and experience 
under the rule available to ascertain the rule's actual impact. For 
that reason, we encourage the public to emphasize those rules that have 
been in effect for a sufficient amount of time to warrant a fair 
evaluation.
     Comments that rehash debates over recently issued rules 
will be less useful.

C. List of Questions for Commenters

    We provide the below nonexhaustive list of questions to assist 
members of the public in the formulation of comments, and we do not 
intend it to restrict the issues that commenters may address:
    (1) Are there regulations that simply make no sense or have become 
unnecessary, ineffective, or ill-advised and, if so, what are they? Are 
there regulations that can simply be repealed without impairing the 
Department's regulatory programs and, if so, what are they?
    (2) Are there regulations that have become outdated and, if so, how 
can DHS modernize them to accomplish our regulatory objectives at a 
lower cost?
    (3) Are there regulations that are still necessary, but have not 
operated as well as expected such that a modified, stronger, or 
slightly different approach is justified?
    (4) Does the Department currently collect information that it does 
not need or use effectively to achieve regulatory objectives?
    (5) Are there regulations that are unnecessarily complicated or 
that DHS could streamline to achieve regulatory objectives in more 
efficient ways? If so, how can DHS make them less complicated and/or 
more streamlined?
    (6) Are there regulations that have been overtaken by technological 
developments? Can DHS leverage new technologies to streamline or do 
away with existing regulatory requirements?
    (7) Are there any Departmental regulations that are not tailored to 
impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving statutory 
obligations and regulatory objectives?
    (8) 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?
    (9) Are there regulations that are working well that minimize 
burden and that DHS can use as a model for other DHS regulatory 
programs?
    (10) Are there any regulations that create difficulty because of 
duplication, overlap, or inconsistency of requirements?
    The Department issues this notice solely for information and 
program planning purposes. Responses to this notice do not bind DHS to 
any further actions related to the response.

Christina E. McDonald,
Associate General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-24344 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P

70060

Proposed Rules Federal Register
Vol. 81, No. 196

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, retrospective review. On June 6, 2011,
contains notices to the public of the proposed identified by docket number DHS– DHS published a notice of availability;
issuance of rules and regulations. The 2016–0072, through the Federal request for comments announcing the
purpose of these notices is to give interested eRulemaking Portal: http:// availability of, and seeking comment on,
persons an opportunity to participate in the www.regulations.gov. Follow the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final its Preliminary Plan for the
rules.
instructions for submitting comments. Retrospective Review of Existing
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulations. 76 FR 32331. DHS
Charlotte Skey, Senior Regulatory considered this public input as it
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Economist, Office of the General developed a Final Plan.
SECURITY Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland
On August 22, 2011, DHS issued its
Security. Email: Regulatory.Review@
6 CFR Chapter I Final Plan for the Retrospective Review
dhs.gov.
of Existing Regulations (Final Plan or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DHS Final Plan). The DHS Final Plan is
8 CFR Chapter I
I. Public Participation available online at http://www.dhs.gov/
19 CFR Chapter I xlibrary/assets/dhs-ogc-final-
Interested persons are invited to
comment on this notice by submitting retrospective-review-plan-8-22-11-
33 CFR Chapter I written data, views, or arguments using final.pdf. The Final Plan established a
the method identified in the ADDRESSES process for identifying regulations that
44 CFR Chapter I section. may be obsolete, unnecessary,
Instructions: All submissions must unjustified, excessively burdensome, or
46 CFR Chapters I and III include the agency name and docket counterproductive. Under the Final
number for this notice. All comments Plan, DHS (and/or a DHS component)
49 CFR Chapter XII received will be posted without change will publish a notice in the Federal
to http://www.regulations.gov. Register every three years seeking
[Docket No. DHS–2016–0072] Docket: For access to the docket to public input regarding the regulations
read background documents or that should be subject to retrospective
Retrospective Review of Existing comments, go to http:// review. DHS published its previous
Regulations—A Focus on Burden www.regulations.gov. Federal Register notice seeking such
Reduction; Request for Public Input public input on February 26, 2014. 79
II. Background
AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, FR 10760. Today’s notice, which
On January 18, 2011, the President requests nominations for existing
DHS. issued E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving significant DHS regulations that DHS
ACTION: Notice of Retrospective Review Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ to should streamline or repeal, fulfills the
Initiative and request for comments. ensure that Federal regulations seek DHS commitment to seek public input
more affordable, less intrusive means to via the Federal Register on a three-year
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland achieve policy goals and that agencies
Security (Department or DHS) is seeking cycle.
give careful consideration to the benefits
comments from the public on specific and costs of those regulations. 76 FR DHS continually evaluates its
existing significant DHS regulations that 3821. The Executive Order required regulatory program for rules that are
the Department should consider as each Executive Branch agency to candidates for retrospective review;
candidates for streamlining or repeal. develop a preliminary plan to DHS does so through legally mandated
These efforts will help us ensure that periodically review its existing retrospective review requirements (e.g.,
DHS satisfies its statutory obligations regulations to determine whether any Unified Agenda reviews, and reviews
and achieves its regulatory objectives regulations should be modified, under section 610 of the Regulatory
without imposing unwarranted costs. streamlined, expanded, or repealed so Flexibility Act) and through other
DHS is seeking this input pursuant to as to make the agency’s regulatory informal and long-established
the process identified in DHS’s Final program more effective or less mechanisms (e.g., use of Advisory
Plan for the Retrospective Review of burdensome in achieving its regulatory Councils, feedback from DHS field
Existing Regulations. According to the objectives. personnel, input from internal working
Final Plan, DHS will initiate its DHS’s approach to conducting groups, and outreach to regulated
retrospective review process, on a three- retrospective review focuses on public entities). This Federal Register notice
year cycle, by seeking input from the openness and transparency and on the supplements these existing extensive
public. Input that will be most helpful critical role of public input in DHS retrospective review efforts.1
to DHS is input that identifies specific conducting retrospective review. To that
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

regulations and includes actionable data end, DHS published a notice and 1 Twice a year, DHS posts a progress report on the
supporting the nomination of specific request for comments in the Federal DHS Web site; the report provides the status of DHS
regulations for retrospective review. Register on March 14, 2011. 76 FR regulations currently under retrospective review.
DATES: Written comments are requested 13526. In that notice, DHS solicited DHS published its most recent progress report in
July 2016, and the report is available on the DHS
on or before November 10, 2016 Late- public input on how DHS should Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/latest-progress
filed comments will be considered to structure its retrospective review and under ‘‘DHS July 2016 Retrospective Review Plan
the extent practicable. which DHS rules would benefit from Report.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:38 Oct 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM 11OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 70061

II. DHS’s Regulatory Responsibility DHS Final Plan provides instruction on (1) Are there regulations that simply
DHS’s mission is to ensure a the type of feedback that is most useful make no sense or have become
homeland that is safe, secure, and to the Department. unnecessary, ineffective, or ill-advised
resilient against terrorism and other DHS will afford significantly greater weight and, if so, what are they? Are there
hazards. The Department carries out its to feedback that identifies specific regulations that can simply be repealed
mission through the Office of the regulations, includes actionable data, or without impairing the Department’s
Secretary and its components, including provides viable alternatives that meet regulatory programs and, if so, what are
statutory obligations and regulatory
the following operational components: they?
objectives. Feedback that simply states that a
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration stakeholder feels strongly that DHS should (2) Are there regulations that have
Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. change a regulation, but does not contain become outdated and, if so, how can
Customs and Border Protection, Federal specific information on how the proposed DHS modernize them to accomplish our
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. change would impact the costs and benefits
regulatory objectives at a lower cost?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, of the regulation, is much less useful to DHS.
U.S. Secret Service, and Transportation DHS is looking for new information and new (3) Are there regulations that are still
Security Administration. economic data to support any proposed necessary, but have not operated as well
changes. [emphasis added] as expected such that a modified,
Leading a unified national effort, DHS
has five core missions: (1) Prevent We highlight a few of those points stronger, or slightly different approach
terrorism and enhance security; (2) here, noting that comments that will be is justified?
secure and manage our borders; (3) most useful to DHS are those that are (4) Does the Department currently
enforce and administer our immigration guided by the below principles. collect information that it does not need
laws; (4) safeguard and secure Commenters should consider these or use effectively to achieve regulatory
cyberspace; and (5) ensure resilience to principles as they answer and respond objectives?
disasters. To further these areas, DHS to the questions in this notice.
has responsibility for a broad range of • For this notice, DHS is focusing on (5) Are there regulations that are
regulations. For example, to secure and reducing the burdens of its regulations unnecessarily complicated or that DHS
manage our borders, DHS regulates and is not seeking comment on actions could streamline to achieve regulatory
people and goods entering and exiting that might increase the net cost of the objectives in more efficient ways? If so,
the United States. DHS, to combat DHS regulatory program. how can DHS make them less
terrorism, regulates aviation security, • Commenters should identify, with complicated and/or more streamlined?
high-risk chemical facilities, and specificity, the regulation at issue, (6) Are there regulations that have
infrastructure protection. DHS also providing the Code of Federal been overtaken by technological
issues regulations to administer Regulations (CFR) cite where available. developments? Can DHS leverage new
• Commenters should provide, in as
immigration and citizenship benefits as technologies to streamline or do away
much detail as possible, an explanation
well as regulations covering maritime with existing regulatory requirements?
why a regulation should be streamlined
safety and environmental protection. (7) Are there any Departmental
or repealed in order to reduce burdens,
Finally, DHS promulgates a wide range regulations that are not tailored to
as well as specific suggestions of ways
of regulations concerning disaster impose the least burden on society,
the Department can better achieve its
preparedness, response, and recovery.
regulatory objectives. consistent with achieving statutory
III. Request for Input • Commenters should provide obligations and regulatory objectives?
specific data that document the costs, (8) How can the Department best
A. Importance of Public Feedback
burdens, and benefits of existing obtain and consider accurate, objective
A central tenet of the DHS Final Plan requirements. Commenters might also
is the critical and essential role of information and data about the costs,
address how DHS can best obtain and burdens, and benefits of existing
public input in driving and focusing consider accurate, objective information
DHS retrospective review. Because the regulations? Are there existing sources
and data about the costs, burdens, and
impacts and effects of a regulation tend of data the Department can use to
benefits of existing regulations and
to be widely dispersed in society, evaluate the post-promulgation effects
whether there are existing sources of
members of the public—especially the of regulations over time?
data that DHS can use to evaluate the
regulated entities of rulemakings—are post-promulgation effects of its (9) Are there regulations that are
likely to have useful information, data, regulations over time. working well that minimize burden and
and perspectives on the benefits and • Particularly where comments relate that DHS can use as a model for other
burdens of existing DHS regulations. to a rule’s costs or benefits, comments DHS regulatory programs?
Given this importance of public input, will be most useful if there are data and (10) Are there any regulations that
the primary factor for regulation experience under the rule available to create difficulty because of duplication,
selection in DHS retrospective review is ascertain the rule’s actual impact. For overlap, or inconsistency of
public feedback. that reason, we encourage the public to requirements?
B. Maximizing the Value of Public emphasize those rules that have been in
effect for a sufficient amount of time to The Department issues this notice
Feedback solely for information and program
warrant a fair evaluation.
This notice contains a list of • Comments that rehash debates over planning purposes. Responses to this
questions, the answers to which will notice do not bind DHS to any further
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

recently issued rules will be less useful.
assist DHS in identifying those actions related to the response.
regulations that may be streamlined or C. List of Questions for Commenters
repealed in order to reduce burden. DHS We provide the below nonexhaustive Christina E. McDonald,
encourages public comment on these list of questions to assist members of the Associate General Counsel for Regulatory
questions and seeks any other data public in the formulation of comments, Affairs.
commenters believe are relevant to and we do not intend it to restrict the [FR Doc. 2016–24344 Filed 10–7–16; 8:45 am]
DHS’s retrospective review efforts. The issues that commenters may address: BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:38 Oct 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM 11OCP1

Document Created: 2018-02-13 16:33:40
Document Modified: 2018-02-13 16:33:40

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of Retrospective Review Initiative and request for comments.
Dates		Written comments are requested on or before November 10, 2016 Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Contact		Charlotte Skey, Senior Regulatory Economist, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Email: [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 70060
CFR Citation		19 Title 19 CFR Chapter I 33 Title 33 CFR Chapter I 44 Title 44 CFR Chapter I 46 Title 46 CFR Chapter I 49 Title 49 CFR Chapter XII 6 Title 6 CFR Chapter I 8 Title 8 CFR Chapter I