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

13526 

Vol. 76, No. 49 

Monday, March 14, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

6 CFR Chapter I 

8 CFR Chapter I 

19 CFR Chapter I 

33 CFR Chapter I 

44 CFR Chapter I 

46 CFR Chapters I and III 

49 CFR Chapter XII 

[Docket No. DHS–2011–0015] 

Reducing Regulatory Burden; 

Retrospective Review Under Executive 

Order 13563 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

DHS. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Executive Order 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ issued by the 

President on January 18, 2011, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(Department or DHS) must develop a 

preliminary plan to facilitate the review 

of existing DHS significant regulations 

through the use of retrospective 

analyses. The preliminary plan will 

include criteria for identifying existing 

DHS significant rules that might be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed, so as to make DHS’s regulatory 

program more effective or less 

burdensome in achieving its regulatory 

objectives. The Department is soliciting 

views from the public on how best to 

develop its preliminary plan. The 

Department is also seeking views from 

the public on specific existing 

significant DHS rules that the 

Department should consider as 

candidates for modification, 

streamlining, expansion, or repeal. 

These efforts will help DHS ensure that 

its regulations contain necessary, 

properly tailored, and up-to-date 

requirements that effectively achieve 

regulatory objectives without imposing 

unwarranted costs. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

April 13, 2011. Late-filed comments will 

be considered to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number DHS– 

2011–0015, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Regulatory.Review@dhs.gov. 

Include ‘‘DHS Retrospective Review’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

• IdeaScale: IdeaScale is a Web-based 

platform that allows users to actively 

share information and expertise in a 

collaborative manner. IdeaScale allows 

commenters to submit ideas, discuss 

and refine others’ ideas, and vote on 

each others’ ideas. To submit comments 

or engage in dialogue via IdeaScale, go 

to the feedback community link at 

http:// 

DHSretrospectivereview.ideascale.com. 

In order to participate, you will have to 

obtain a log-in. You have two options: 

(1) You may register and obtain a login on IdeaScale using a verifiable e-mail 

address, or (2) You can use the OpenID 

feature, which allows you to log-in on 

IdeaScale and participate using an 

existing social media account such as 

Facebook or Twitter. For further 

information, see the section titled 

‘‘DHS’s Implementation of Executive 

Order 13563.’’ 

• Mail: U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of the General Counsel, 

245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0485, 

Washington, DC 20528–0485 ATTN: 

DHS Retrospective Review. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christina E. McDonald, Acting 

Associate General Counsel for 

Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, Office of the 

General Counsel. E-mail: 

Regulatory.Review@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

comment on this notice by submitting 

written data, views, or arguments using 

any of the methods identified in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this notice. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments that include trade secrets 

information, confidential commercial or 

financial information, Sensitive Security 

Information (SSI), Protected Critical 

Infrastructure Information (PCII) or 

Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability 

Information (CVI) should not be 

submitted to the public docket. Please 

submit such comments separately from 

other comments on this notice. 

Comments containing trade secrets, 

confidential commercial or financial 

information, SSI, PCII, or CVI should be 

appropriately marked as containing 

such information and submitted by mail 

to the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

B. Executive Order 13563 

On January 18, 2011, the President 

issued Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (76 FR 3821) 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. The 

Executive Order reaffirms and builds 

upon governing principles of 

contemporary regulatory review, 

including Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993). To that end, 

Executive Order 13563 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 achieving 

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, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13527 

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 low-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, each agency 

must develop a preliminary plan ‘‘under 

which the agency will periodically 

review its existing significant 

regulations to determine whether any 

such regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed so 

as to make the agency’s regulatory 

program more effective or less 

burdensome in achieving the regulatory 

objectives.’’ 

C. DHS’s Regulatory Responsibility 

DHS’s mission is to ensure a 

homeland that is safe, secure, and 

resilient against terrorism and other 

hazards. The Department carries out its 

mission through the Office of the 

Secretary and 28 components, including 

the following seven operational 

components: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, U.S. Coast Guard, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, and 

Transportation Security Administration. 

Our mission gives us five main areas 

of responsibility: (1) Prevent terrorism 

and enhance security; (2) secure and 

manage our borders; (3) enforce and 

administer our immigration laws; (4) 

safeguard and secure cyberspace; and 

(5) ensure resilience to disasters. To 

further these areas, DHS has 

responsibility for a broad range of 

regulations. For example, to secure and 

manage our borders, DHS regulates 

people and goods entering and exiting 

the United States. DHS, to combat 

terrorism, regulates aviation security, 

high-risk chemical facilities, and 

infrastructure protection. DHS also 

issues regulations to administer 

immigration and citizenship benefits as 

well as regulations covering maritime 

safety and environmental protection. 

Finally, DHS promulgates a wide range 

of regulations concerning disaster 

preparedness, response, and recovery. 

D. DHS’s Implementation of Executive 

Order 13563 

As a first step in launching its 

retrospective review under Executive 

Order 13563, DHS is issuing this notice 

seeking public comment. To facilitate 

public dialogue and crosscommunication on these matters, in 

addition to the standard regulatory 

channels, DHS is also seeking comment 

through IdeaScale. IdeaScale is a Webbased platform that allows users to 

actively share information and expertise 

in a collaborative manner. IdeaScale 

allows commenters to submit ideas, 

discuss and refine others’ ideas, and 

vote on each others’ ideas. For 

instructions on how to use IdeaScale, 

see the ADDRESSES section above. DHS 

encourages public commenters to 

engage in dialogue through IdeaScale. 

As a participant of IdeaScale, 

commenters can engage in dialogue in 

seven ways: (1) View, search, and 

explore all content on the site (no login required); (2) Submit an original idea 

to a particular category (log-in required); 

(3) Submit a comment about an idea 

(log-in required); (4) Vote on an idea 

(log-in required); (5) Flag inappropriate 

ideas and comments, as being either 

SPAM/Inappropriate or Duplicate (login required); (6) Share ideas through a 

Twitter feed or on your Facebook page 

(log-in required for IdeaScale, as well as 

an active Facebook and/or Twitter 

account); (7) Tag an idea (participants 

can assign key words or terms to ideas 

to help describe/categorize the idea, 

thus allowing the idea to be found again 

by Web 2.0 browsing or searching). 

II. Request for Comment 

Pursuant to the Executive Order, DHS 

is developing a preliminary plan for the 

periodic review of its existing 

significant regulations. DHS’s goal is to 

create a systematic method for 

identifying those significant rules that 

are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, 

or simply no longer make sense. 

Although this review will focus on the 

elimination of significant rules that are 

no longer warranted, DHS will also 

consider strengthening, complementing, 

or modernizing rules where necessary or 

appropriate—including, as relevant, 

undertaking new rulemakings. The 

Department stresses that this review is 

for existing significant rules; the public 

should not use this process to submit 

comments on proposed rules. 

Despite best efforts at the time a rule 

is promulgated, it is generally difficult 

to be certain of the consequences of a 

rule, including its costs and benefits, 

until it has been tested. Because 

knowledge about the full effects of a 

rule tends to be widely dispersed in 

society, members of the public are likely 

to have useful information and 

perspectives on the benefits and 

burdens of existing requirements and 

how regulatory obligations may be 

updated, streamlined, revised, or 

repealed to better achieve regulatory 

objectives, while minimizing regulatory 

burdens. Interested parties may also be 

well-positioned 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 DHS’s review of its existing 

significant regulations. 

III. List of Questions for Commenters 

Below is a list of preliminary 

questions, the answers to which will 

assist in informing the Department’s 

efforts to develop a preliminary plan for 

the retrospective analysis of its existing 

regulations and to identify those 

regulations that may benefit from a 

retrospective analysis. In addressing 

these questions, commenters should 

identify, with specificity, the regulation 

at issue, providing the Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) cite where available. 

DHS also requests that the commenter 

provide, in as much detail as possible, 

an explanation why a regulation should 

be modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed, as well as specific suggestions 

of ways the Department can better 

achieve its regulatory objectives. DHS 

encourages interested parties to provide 

specific data that document the costs, 

burdens, and benefits of existing 

requirements. Comments that rehash 

debates over recently issued rules will 

be less useful. 

Commenters might also address how 

DHS can best obtain and consider 

accurate, objective information and data 

about the costs, burdens, and benefits of 

existing regulations and whether there 

are existing sources of data that DHS 

can use to evaluate the postpromulgation effects of its regulations 

over time. Particularly where comments 

relate to a rule’s costs or benefits, 

comments will be most useful if there 

are data and experience under the rule 

available to ascertain the rule’s actual 

impact. For that reason, we encourage 

the public to emphasize those rules that 

have been in effect for a sufficient 

amount of time to warrant a fair 

evaluation. 

The below nonexhaustive list is 

meant to assist in the formulation of 

comments and is not intended to restrict 

the issues that commenters may 

address: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(1) How can the Department best 

promote meaningful periodic reviews of 

its existing significant regulations, 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 simply 

make no sense or have become 

unnecessary, ineffective, or ill advised 

and, if so, what are they? Are there rules 

that can simply be repealed without 

impairing the Department’s regulatory 

programs and, if so, what are they? 

(4) Are there rules that have become 

outdated and, if so, how can they be 

modernized to accomplish their 

regulatory objectives better? 

(5) Are there rules that are still 

necessary, but have not operated as well 

as expected such that a modified, 

stronger, or slightly different approach 

is justified? 

(6) Does the Department currently 

collect information that it does not need 

or use effectively to achieve regulatory 

objectives? 

(7) Are there regulations that are 

unnecessarily complicated or could be 

streamlined to achieve regulatory 

objectives in more efficient ways? 

(8) Are there rules that have been 

overtaken by technological 

developments? Can new technologies be 

leveraged to modify, streamline, or do 

away with existing regulatory 

requirements? 

(9) Are there any of the Department’s 

regulations that are not tailored to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with achieving the regulatory 

objectives? 

(10) How can the Department best 

obtain and consider accurate, objective 

information and data about the costs, 

burdens, and benefits of existing 

regulations? Are there existing sources 

of data the Department can use to 

evaluate the post-promulgation effects 

of regulations over time? 

(11) Are there regulations that are 

working well that can be expanded or 

used as a model to fill gaps in other 

DHS regulatory programs? 

(12) Are there any regulations that 

create difficulty because of duplication, 

overlap, or inconsistency of 

requirements? 

The Department notes that this notice 

is issued solely for information and 

program-planning purposes. Responses 

to this notice do not bind DHS to any 

further actions related to the response. 

Ivan K. Fong, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5829 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 930 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–10–0087; FV10–930– 

5; AO–370–A9; 11–0093] 

Tart Cherries Grown in the States of 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin; Hearing on Proposed 

Amendment of Marketing Agreement 

and Order No. 930 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of hearing on proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a 

public hearing to receive evidence on 

proposed amendments to Marketing 

Agreement and Order No. 930 (order), 

which regulate the handling of tart 

cherries grown in Michigan, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wisconsin. Three 

amendments are proposed by the Cherry 

Industry Administrative Board (Board), 

which is responsible for local 

administration of the order. The 

proposed amendments would change 

how grower diversion of cherries is 

accounted for under the order and 

would affect volume control in years 

when grower diversions are utilized. In 

addition, the Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) proposes to make any 

such changes as may be necessary to the 

order or administrative rules and 

regulations to conform to any 

amendment that may result from the 

hearing. These proposed amendments 

are intended to improve the operation 

and administration of the order. 

DATES: The hearing dates are: 

1. April 20, 2011, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and 

continuing on April 21, 2011, at 9 a.m., 

if necessary, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. 

2. April 26, 2011, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and 

continuing on April 27, 2011, at 9 a.m., 

if necessary, in Provo, Utah. 

ADDRESSES: The hearing locations are: 

1. Grand Rapids—U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court, One Division Ave., N, 3rd Floor 

Courtroom A, Grand Rapids, MI 49503. 

2. Provo—Utah County 

Administration Building, 100 E. Center 

Street, Room L900, Provo, Utah 84606. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Parisa Salehi, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250, telephone: (202) 

720–9918, Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

Kathleen M. Finn, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; telephone: 

(202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or 

e-mail: Parisa.Salehi@usda.gov or 

Kathy.Finn@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on this proceeding by 

contacting Antoinette Carter, Marketing 

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; telephone: 

(202) 720–6862, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or 

e-mail: Antoinette.Carter@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

administrative action is instituted 

pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act.’’ This action is governed by 

the provisions of sections 556 and 557 

of title 5 of the United States Code and, 

therefore, is excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601–612) seeks to ensure that 

within the statutory authority of a 

program, the regulatory and 

informational requirements are tailored 

to the size and nature of small 

businesses. Interested persons are 

invited to present evidence at the 

hearing on the possible regulatory and 

informational impacts of the proposals 

on small businesses. 

The amendments proposed herein 

have been reviewed under Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They 

are not intended to have retroactive 

effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. The Act provides that 

the district court of the United States in 

any district in which the handler is an 

inhabitant, or has his or her principal 

place of business, has jurisdiction to 

review the USDA’s ruling on the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1