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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

11163 

Vol. 76, No. 40 

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

2 CFR Chapter XXVII 

5 CFR Chapter XXVIII 

8 CFR Chapter V 

21 CFR Chapter II 

27 CFR Chapter II 

28 CFR Chapters I, III, V, and VI 

31 CFR Chapter IX 

40 CFR Chapter IV 

41 CFR Chapter 128 

45 CFR Chapter V 

48 CFR Chapter 28 

[Docket No. OLP 150] 

Reducing Regulatory Burden; 

Retrospective Review Under E.O. 

13563 

AGENCY: Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: As part of its implementation 

of Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

issued by the President on January 18, 

2011, the Department of Justice (the 

Department) is seeking comments and 

information from interested parties to 

assist it in reviewing its existing 

regulations to determine whether any 

such regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed. The 

purpose of Justice’s review is to make 

the agency’s regulatory program more 

effective and less burdensome in 

achieving its regulatory objectives. 

Comment Date: Written comments 

must be postmarked and electronic 

comments must be submitted on or 

before March 31, 2011. Commenters 

should be aware that the electronic 

Federal Docket Management System 

will not accept comments after 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the 

comment period. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

OLP Regulatory Docket Clerk, 

Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Room 4250, Washington, 

DC 20530. To ensure proper handling, 

please reference OLP Docket No. 150 on 

your correspondence. You may submit 

comments electronically or view an 

electronic version of this final rule with 

request for comments at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, 

Office of Legal Policy, Department of 

Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Room 4252, Washington, DC 20530; 

Telephone (202) 514–8059. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Posting of Public Comments. Please 

note that all comments received are 

considered part of the public record and 

made available for public inspection 

online at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Such information includes personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter. 

Personal identifying information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. If you 

wish to inspect the agency’s public 

docket file in person by appointment, 

please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph. 

The Department understands that the 

public comment period set forth in this 

Notice is shorter than the 60-day 

comment period normally given for 

proposed rules. However, in this notice 

(which is not, of course, a proposed 

rule), the Department is not asking for 

detailed, lengthy comments on its 

regulations, but only on matters 

pertaining to the retrospective review 

plan which it currently has under 

development. Further opportunities will 

be given for public comment on those 

regulations that the Department 

identifies for retrospective review. 

Overview 

The Department of Justice is not a 

major regulatory agency. Although the 

number and economic impact of the 

Department’s regulations may be less 

than that of some of our sister Federal 

agencies, the Department is nonetheless 

committed to reviewing its existing 

regulations as described more fully 

below. 

On January 18, 2011, the President 

issued Executive Order 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. To that end, the 

Executive Order requires, among other 

things, that: 

• Agencies propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs; and that agencies tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining the 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; and that 

agencies select, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity). 

• The regulatory process encourages 

public participation and an open 

exchange of views, with an opportunity 

for the public to comment. 

• Agencies coordinate, simplify, and 

harmonize regulations to reduce costs 

and promote certainty for businesses 

and the public. 

• Agencies consider lower-cost 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility. 

• Regulations be guided by objective 

scientific evidence. 

Additionally, the Executive Order 

directs agencies to consider how best to 

promote retrospective analyses of 

existing rules. Specifically, agencies 

must develop a preliminary plan under 

which the agency will periodically 

review existing regulations to determine 

which should be maintained, modified, 

strengthened, or repealed to increase the 

effectiveness and decrease the burdens 

of the agency’s regulatory program. 

To implement the Executive Order, 

the Department is taking several 

immediate steps to launch its 

retrospective review of existing 

regulatory requirements. As described 

further below, the Department is issuing 

this Request for Information (RFI) 

seeking public comment on how best to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
11164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

review its existing regulations and to 

identify whether any of its existing 

regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed. We 

will also be working with the 

Department’s rulemaking components 

on a preliminary plan for the periodic 

review of its existing regulations, 

including ways to institutionalize, 

within the Department, the ongoing 

review of the Department’s regulations, 

in an open dialog with the public. 

Through this process, the Department 

will consider the elimination of rules 

that are no longer warranted, and will 

also consider strengthening, 

complementing, or modernizing rules 

where necessary or appropriate— 

including, as appropriate, undertaking 

new rulemaking actions. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

commitment to public participation in 

the rulemaking process, the Department 

is beginning this process by soliciting 

views from the public on how best to 

conduct its analysis of existing Justice 

rules and how best to identify those 

rules that might be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed. It is 

also seeking views from the public on 

specific rules or obligations that should 

be altered or eliminated. While the 

Department promulgates rules in 

accordance with the law and to the best 

of its ability, we recognize that the best 

information as to the consequences of a 

rule, including its costs and benefits, 

comes from practical, real-world 

experience (both on the part of the 

public and on the part of the 

Department) after the rule has been 

implemented. Members of the public 

and of entities affected by Department’s 

regulations are likely to have useful 

information and perspectives on the 

benefits and burdens of existing 

requirements beyond the information 

that was available to the Department at 

the time a regulation was issued. 

Interested parties may also be wellpositioned to identify those rules that 

are most in need of review and, thus, 

assist the Department in prioritizing and 

properly tailoring its retrospective 

review process. In short, engaging the 

public in an open, transparent process 

is a crucial first step in the Department’s 

review of its existing regulations. 

Questions for Commenters 

The following list of questions 

represents a preliminary attempt to 

identify issues raised by the 

Department’s efforts to develop a 

preliminary plan for the retrospective 

analysis of its regulations and to 

identify rules/obligations on which it 

should immediately focus. This 

nonexhaustive list is meant to assist in 

the formulation of comments and is not 

intended to restrict the issues that may 

be addressed. In addressing these 

questions or others, we request that 

commenters identify with specificity the 

regulation or reporting requirement at 

issue, providing the legal citation and 

providing where possible empirical 

information on the impact of the rule on 

those subject to it. We also request that 

the submitter explain, in as much detail 

as possible, why a regulation or 

reporting requirement should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed, as well as suggest specific 

alternative means for the Department to 

better achieve the statutory or regulatory 

objectives. 

(1) How can the Department best 

promote meaningful periodic reviews of 

its existing rules and how can it best 

identify those rules that might be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed? 

(2) What factors should the agency 

consider in selecting and prioritizing 

rules for review? 

(3) Are there regulations that have 

become ineffective or been overtaken by 

technological or other change and, if so, 

what are they? How can they be 

modernized to accomplish the statutory 

or regulatory objectives better? 

(4) Are there rules that can simply be 

revoked without impairing the 

Department’s statutory obligations and 

policy objectives and, if so, what are 

they? 

(5) Are there rules that are still 

necessary, but have not operated as well 

as expected such that a modified, 

stronger, or different approach is 

justified? 

(6) How can the Department best 

obtain and consider accurate, objective 

information and data about the costs, 

burdens, and benefits of existing 

regulations consistent with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act and without 

imposing information collection 

burdens on the public? Are there 

existing sources of data the Department 

can use to evaluate the postpromulgation effects of regulations over 

time? We invite interested parties to 

provide data that may be in their 

possession that documents the costs, 

burdens, and benefits of existing 

requirements. 

The Department notes that this 

Request for Information is issued solely 

for information and program-planning 

purposes. The Department will give 

careful consideration to the responses, 

and may use them as appropriate during 

the retrospective review, but we do not 

anticipate providing a point-by-point 

response to each comment submitted. 

While responses to this RFI do not bind 

the Department to any further actions 

related to the response, all submissions 

will be made publically available on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Dated: February 22, 2011. 

Christopher H. Schroeder, 

Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal 

Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4513 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Parts 703, 704, 709, and 742 

RIN 3133–AD86 

Removing References to Credit 

Ratings in Regulations; Proposing 

Alternatives to the Use of Credit 

Ratings 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: NCUA is proposing rules to 

implement certain statutory provisions 

in Title IX of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (the Dodd-Frank Act). The proposed 

rules replace or remove references to 

credit ratings in NCUA regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (Please 

send comments by one method only): 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

NCUA Web site: http:// 

www.ncua.gov/Resources/ 

RegulationsOpinionsLaws/ 

ProposedRegulations.aspx. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: Address to 

regcomments@ncua.gov. Include ‘‘[Your 

name] Comments on ‘‘Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking—Removing 

References to Credit Ratings’’ in the email subject line. 

Fax: (703) 518–6319. Use the subject 

line described above for e-mail. 

Mail: Address to Mary Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board, National Credit 

Union Administration, 1775 Duke 

Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314– 

3428. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail 

address. 

Public Inspection: All public 

comments are available on the agency’s 

Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/ 

Resources/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/ 

ProposedRegulations.aspx as submitted, 

except as may not be possible for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS