1. KATHRYN SINNIGER ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER LIAISON CONFERENCE JUNE 5, 2014 U.S. Department of Transportation’s Retrospective Review of Rulemaking

2. What will we cover? 2 Why Retrospective Review? Process What Worked? What Didn’t Work? Round Two? Culture of Retrospective Review

3. Why Retrospective Review? 3

4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Section 610 (5 U.S.C. 610)  Requires that all federal agencies review their existing regulations over a period of ten years and revise those that are duplicative, excessively burdensome, or no longer necessary.  Reviews must include those rules that have been published within the previous 10 years and that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SEISNOSE).  At DOT, the last 10-year cycle began in 1998; results of reviews published each fall in Appendix D to the DOT Regulatory Plan and Agenda. 4

5. Executive Order 13563 Issued on January 18, 2011  Within 120 days of the date of the order, each agency required to develop and submit to OIRA a preliminary plan, outlining how the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives. DOT Final Plan published in August 2011 5

6. DOT Plan for Implementation of E.O. 13563 6 Commitment to merge the results of retrospective reviews conducted pursuant to E.O. 13563 with our 10-year review plan under RFA section 610.  Provide public with a simpler resource  Provide DOT leadership with effective tool for oversight Final Plan included list of 79 existing rules where action was already taken or proposed, which included significant savings of time and/or burden hours. Also identified 56 other rules for study Six updates to Plan have been issued; last in January

7. 7 Process

8. Public Participation 8 Notice requesting comments on Feb. 16, 2011  Sought comments on a plan and identification of specific rules that should be reviewed because they are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.  Announced Public Meeting. Public Meeting on March 14, 2011 Used IdeaScale website  Gave public an alternate means to provide us with feedback in less formal manner. Additional outreach: press alerts; emails to broad range of interest groups; blog & website postings Preliminary Plan posted on June 3, 2011  30 day comment period Final Plan August 2011; six updates since that time  Additional rules added with each update

9. What Worked? What Didn’t Work? 9

10. 10 Pro: Public meeting pre-registration  Requiring attendees to indicate a desire to speak in advance allowed us to add structure and organization to the public meeting Con: IdeaScale  Comments received via website were less helpful  Created duplicative comments  Additional burden on DOT to manage website and transfer comments to official docket

11. Round Two? 11

12. More Public Participation 12 February 27 – DOT Notice and request for comments, “Next Phase of Regulatory Review of Existing DOT Regulations”  Asked public’s input on the next steps for implementing E.O. 13563  Suggested alternatives:  Nominations of additional regulations for retrospective review  Focus on already identified rules from 2011 final plan  Focus on one or more specific DOT agency regulations or cross cutting issues  Listening session tailored to specific options

13. Public Response 13 32 commenters  Additional regulations for retrospective review were identified  Some support for focusing on rules already identified  Some support for focusing on modal-specific or cross-cutting issues  Support for listening sessions/public meetings/webinars  Many supported all of the above Additional ideas  Utilize existing Advisory Committees  Consolidate all retrospective review lists to single list  Prioritize retrospective review based on cost of rule

14. 14 Culture of Retrospective Review

15. Working Retrospective Review into Every Project 15 Add economically significant rules into 10- year cycle as issued Define “success” when issuing final rules Recognize and emphasize retrospective nature in all projects

16. 16 Questions?