Comment submitted by Kelly Baucom
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the rescission of the arbitration requirements, arguing that removing a basic process that the EPA does not even track is irresponsible and short-sighted. They question the logic of "simplifying" regulations by eliminating an underutilized procedure.
It is unclear to me what purpose rescinding part 304 serves, especially given EPA itself acknowledges that it is unaware whether or not the arbitration process has been used. Why eliminate a process so basic as arbitration? The only given reasoning for this is to ‘simplify’ the body of federal regulations. Removing a process that, by EPA’s own admission, they have not been tracking the use of, strikes me as irresponsible and short-sighted.