Comment on FR Doc # 2026-10729

Persistence Analytics Group LLC submits this comment regarding DOE–HQ–2025–0603, Zero-Based Regulating. PAG supports disciplined regulatory review. Energy markets, infrastructure needs, technology, supply chains, national-security requirements, and public-finance conditions change. Regulations should not remain in force merely because they exist. However, zero-based regulatory review must be implemented through evidence, risk screening, and public-interest verification — not through automatic expiration that could create operational uncertainty. The core issue is implementation integrity. DOE should distinguish between: outdated rules that impose unnecessary burden, rules that should be revised because technology or market conditions have changed, and rules that remain necessary because they protect energy reliability, nuclear safety, worker protection, classified information, contractor accountability, grant integrity, public trust, or national-security execution. A sunset mechanism can be useful only if DOE verifies the consequences before a rule expires. PAG recommends that DOE apply a structured implementation-risk screen before allowing any covered regulation to sunset. At minimum, DOE should assess: 1. Does the regulation support energy security, nuclear safety, grid reliability, classified-information protection, contractor accountability, worker safety, grant integrity, or public-interest safeguards? 2. Would expiration create uncertainty for DOE, NNSA, contractors, utilities, state and local governments, researchers, grant recipients, or regulated entities? 3. Would expiration affect ongoing contracts, grants, financial assistance, permits, procurement, reporting, safety programs, or enforcement actions? 4. Would expiration shift risk to communities, ratepayers, taxpayers, workers, contractors, or national-security missions? 5. Is there a replacement, transition plan, or written justification showing why expiration will not impair DOE’s statutory duties? 6. Has DOE publicly identified the operational consequence of expiration, not merely the legal authority to allow expiration? 7. Is the proposed sunset consistent with energy security, infrastructure readiness, supply-chain durability, and national-security obligations? PAG does not oppose review. PAG opposes unverified expiration. The final rule should require DOE to publish a clear written determination before any covered regulation expires, including: the purpose of the regulation, the operational role it plays, the cost of maintaining it, the burden of compliance, the risk of expiration, affected stakeholders, available alternatives, transition requirements, and the public-interest basis for extension, revision, or removal. The question should not be only: Should this regulation remain? The question should be: What assumption must hold true if this regulation disappears? Zero-based regulating should not become assumption-based deregulating. DOE should trust the review process, but verify the implementation consequences before expiration. Respectfully submitted, Neil P. Osnato Founder Persistence Analytics Group LLC | United Grid National Security & Infrastructure Risk Analytics Demand Durability | Grid Stress | Load Integrity SAM.gov Registered Vendor UEI: D3VYU39H6DX9 | CAGE: 19T34 D-U-N-S: 142849930 neil@persistenceanalyticsgroup.com 609-464-9055 https://persistenceanalyticsgroup.com/