Anonymous public comment

This proposed rule should be withdrawn. Whether or not EPA is unaware of the last time arbitration of these claims was used, it should still maintain arbitration as a method of dispute resolution. Arbitration is a commonly employed practice in federal suits--in many cases, it is required by contract. While arbitration is not flawless, it generally produces mutually amicable outcomes between parties locked in a dispute. Indeed, arbitration's benefits and utility is so widely recognized that federal law has recognized arbitration provisions in contracts as "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" (see 9 U.S.C. §2) for a little over a century. That endorsement, in my view, is difficult to square with this proposed rule's claim that arbitrating these smaller claims is a process of "questionable utility". EPA should not remove arbitration of certain claims simply because it is under-utilized, and it ought to keep a method of dispute resolution unquestionably endorsed by Congress available to those who choose to pursue it. EPA also asserts in this proposed rule that should someone decide to arbitrate a dispute, the agency would be in a position of "using an unpracticed method, which may require shifting and/or reallocating limited agency resources." But arbitration is designed to be simpler, more cost-effective, and less time-consuming than federal litigation or agency proceedings. That is precisely why many contracts contain arbitration clauses--in order to spare both parties needless expense and stress resolving their disputes in federal court or before agencies bound by complicated regulatory schemes and administrative procedures. EPA already pursues hundreds of complicated enforcement actions every year, and I am unpersuaded that their budget and workforce could not accommodate a single arbitration. EPA also says that "[t]he absence of parties that have used arbitration pursuant to part 304 could indicate that it is not as quick and simple of a process as we originally thought." This may be true, although it may be that there are simply not enough actions qualifying for part 304 arbitration to produce a party that wishes to arbitrate. But what EPA does not comment on is whether part 304 arbitration is still more cost-effective (and economically efficient) than agency proceedings or federal litigation. I believe EPA should investigate those matters further before deciding that arbitration is too costly a process to maintain for claims up to $500,000 (which may be "small" relative to other claims the agency pursues, but for many individuals or smaller business is certainly no "small" matter). Eliminating the freedom of parties to agree to alternative forms of dispute resolution like arbitration is a matter that should be handled with great care. Arbitration may not be the correct choice for all claims and in all cases, but eliminating it as an option altogether is a heavy-handed approach. EPA seems to be lacking adequate information (judging by the lack of proffered evidence) to justify its claims that arbitration is too costly, burdensome and complicated to maintain as an option for certain claims. Deregulation does not, and cannot, mean simply slashing rules deemed overly complex. Deregulation ought to focus on decreasing interaction with government bureaucracy and making enforcement proceedings a more flexible and economically efficient process. Because EPA has not shown how this proposed regulation will advance either of those goals, I recommend withdrawing this proposed rule.