Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13549 

(2) If inspection required by paragraph (h) 

was done using Option 2, do the inspection 

required by paragraph (j) of this AD within 

3,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the 

inspection required by paragraph (h) of this 

AD. 

(k) For airplanes on which no cracking is 

confirmed during the most recent inspection 

required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Repeat 

the inspection for loose and missing fasteners 

required by paragraph (j) of this AD thereafter 

at intervals not to exceed the applicable time 

specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this 

AD. 

(1) If the most recent inspection required 

by paragraph (h) was done using Option 1, 

the next inspection required by paragraph (j) 

of this AD must be done within 4,400 flight 

cycles after accomplishing the most recent 

inspection required by paragraph (j) of this 

AD. 

(2) If the most recent inspection required 

by paragraph (h) was done using Option 2, 

the next inspection required by paragraph (j) 

of this AD must be done within 3,000 flight 

cycles after the most recent inspection 

required by paragraph (j) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(l)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Related Information 

(m) For more information about this AD, 

contact Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, Los Angeles 

ACO, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 

90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5233; fax: 562– 

627–5210; e-mail: Roger.Durbin@faa.gov. 

(n) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC 

D800–0019, Long Beach, California 90846– 

0001; phone: 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax: 

206–766–5683; e-mail: 

dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet: https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 4, 

2011. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5726 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Chapter IX 

50 CFR Chapters II, III, IV, and VI 

RIN 0648–XA282 

Reducing Regulatory Burden; 

Retrospective Review Under E.O. 

13563 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is 

preparing a preliminary plan to review 

its existing significant regulations in 

response to the President’s Executive 

Order 13563 on Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review. The purpose of 

NOAA’s review is to make the agency’s 

regulatory program more effective and 

less burdensome in achieving its 

regulatory objectives by identifying 

those regulations that should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded or 

repealed. NOAA is asking for ideas and 

information from the public in 

preparing its preliminary plan 

explaining how it will conduct such a 

review. 

DATES: You must submit any comments 

on or before April 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–XA282, by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 301–713–0596, Attn: William 

Chappell. 

• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, 

SSMC3, SF5, Room 13142, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NOAA will 

accept anonymous comments (enter N/ 

A in the required fields, if you wish to 

remain anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Chappell, 301–713–2337, x169. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration is a Federal agency that 

is part of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. NOAA’s mission is to 

understand and predict changes in the 

Earth’s environment and conserve and 

manage coastal and marine resources to 

meet our Nation’s economic, social, and 

environmental needs. NOAA 

administers a broad range of statutes, 

including, but not limited to the 

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1531, et seq.; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1801, et seq.; Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq, 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1431 et seq.; Coastal Zone 

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1415, et 

seq.; and Land Remote Sensing Policy 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 5601, et seq. 

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. Among other 

things, the Executive Order directed 

agencies to develop and submit a 

preliminary plan within 120 days that 

will explain how they will periodically 

review existing significant regulations to 

identify any regulations that can be 

made more effective or less burdensome 

in achieving regulatory objectives. 

To implement the Executive Order, 

NOAA is taking several immediate steps 

to launch its retrospective review of 

existing regulatory requirements. 

Consistent with its commitment to 

public participation, NOAA is soliciting 

views from the public on how best to 

conduct its analysis of existing NOAA 

rules and how best to identify those 

rules that might be modified, 

streamlined, expanded or repealed. 

NOAA promulgates rules in accordance 

with applicable laws and based on best 

available scientific information, 

analyses of different alternatives for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

agency action, and public participation 

and input. However, important 

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 agency) 

after rules have been implemented. 

Regulated entities and members of the 

public affected by or interested in 

NOAA’s regulations are likely to have 

useful information and perspectives on 

the benefits and burdens of existing 

requirements beyond what was 

available at the time regulations were 

issued. Interested parties may also be 

well-positioned to identify those rules 

that are most in need of review; NOAA 

would find such input helpful as it 

considers how to prioritize and properly 

tailor its retrospective review process 

for significant regulations. In short, 

engaging the public in an open, 

transparent process is a crucial step in 

NOAA’s review of its existing 

regulations. 

NOAA recognizes that the public 

comment period set forth in this 

Request for Information (RFI) is shorter 

than the 30–60 day (or longer) comment 

periods that may be used for proposed 

rules. That is because of consideration 

of the timing requirements under the 

Executive Order, and because NOAA is 

not asking for detailed comments on the 

substance of specific regulation, only 

comments pertaining to the 

retrospective review plan which is 

under development. 

Questions for the Public 

Comments will be most helpful if they 

provide examples and a detailed 

explanation of how the suggestion will 

support NOAA’s mission in a way that 

is more efficient and less burdensome. 

In providing comments, please keep 

these key considerations in mind: 

• Retrospective review does not allow 

NOAA to contravene requirements of its 

various statutory mandates. In addition, 

where NOAA’s discretion has been 

limited by law, as is the case with 

fishery management plans and 

regulations developed by Regional 

Fishery Management Councils under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 304, 

NOAA’s ability to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal regulations is 

similarly constrained. 

• NOAA currently conducts periodic 

review of existing regulations pursuant 

to statutory mandates. For instance, 

NOAA’s Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries is required by the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1434(e), to periodically review 

sanctuary management plans to ensure 

that sanctuary management continues to 

best conserve, protect, and enhance the 

nationally significant living and cultural 

resources at each site. Such review 

provides sanctuary management with an 

ongoing opportunity to review existing 

regulations, amend existing regulations 

(as deemed necessary), and generally 

outline future regulatory goals in the 

management plans. Similarly, pursuant 

to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (as delegated from the Secretary 

of Commerce) is required to review at 

routine intervals that may not exceed 

two years any fishery management 

plans, plan amendments, or regulations 

for fisheries that are experiencing 

overfishing or in need of rebuilding. 16 

U.S.C. 1854(e)(7). For many fisheries, 

revisions to plans and regulations occur 

with even greater frequency, as National 

Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires that conservation and 

management measures be based on the 

best scientific information available. Id. 

§ 1851(a)(2). We seek your input on 

developing a review plan that is 

integrated with those existing 

requirements. 

• Our plan will be tailored to reflect 

our resources, rulemaking history, and 

the volume of significant regulations at 

issue. 

NOAA intends the questions below to 

elicit useful information as the agency 

develops a preliminary plan for possible 

review of its significant regulations. 

These questions are not intended to be 

exhaustive. You may raise other issues 

or make suggestions unrelated to these 

questions that you believe would help 

the agency develop better regulations. 

(1) How can NOAA review its existing 

significant rules in a way that will 

identify rules that can and should be 

changed, streamlined, consolidated, or 

removed? NOAA encourages those 

submitting comments to include a 

proposed process under which such a 

review could be regularly undertaken. 

(2) How can NOAA reduce burdens 

and maintain flexibility and choice for 

the public in a way that will promote 

and achieve its mission? 

(3) Does NOAA have rules or 

guidance that are duplicative or that 

have conflicting requirements among its 

components or with other agencies? If 

so, please specifically identify the rules 

or guidance and suggest ways NOAA 

can streamline, consolidate, or make 

these regulations work better. 

(4) Are there better ways to encourage 

public participation and an open 

exchange of views when NOAA engages 

in rulemaking? 

(5) Are there rules or guidance that is 

working well that could be used as 

models for improving other regulations? 

If so, please specifically identify the rule 

or guidance. 

(6) Are NOAA regulations and 

guidance written in language that is 

clear and easy to understand, consistent 

with statutory requirements? Please 

identify specific regulations and 

guidance that are good candidates for a 

plain language re-write and also identify 

regulations that are written clearly that 

could be used as models. 

(7) What are some suggestions that 

NOAA can use to assure that its 

regulations promote and achieve its 

mission in ways that are efficient and 

less burdensome? 

(8) Which significant regulations have 

proven to be excessively burdensome? 

What data support this? What 

suggestions do you have for reducing 

the burden and maintaining and 

achieving NOAA’s mission? 

(9) Which significant regulations 

could be made more flexible within the 

existing legal framework? What data 

support this? 

(10) 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 objective better? 

NOAA will consider public input as 

we develop a plan to periodically 

review the agency’s significant rules. 

NOAA notes that this Request for 

Information is issued solely for 

information and program-planning 

purposes. The agency will give careful 

consideration to the responses, and may 

use them as appropriate during the 

retrospective review, but we do not 

anticipate providing a response to each 

comment submitted. While responses to 

this RFI do not bind NOAA to any 

further actions related to the response, 

all submissions will be made publically 

available on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

Lois J. Schiffer, 

General Counsel, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5681 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–12–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 301 

RIN 3084–AB26 

Fur Products Labeling Act 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC or Commission). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comment. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1