13532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1206.31 [Amended] 

5. Amend § 1206.31 by removing 

paragraph (h), and redesignating 

paragraph (i) as paragraph (h). 

6. Revise § 1206.32 to read as follows: 

§ 1206.32 Term of office. 

The term of office for first handler, 

importer, domestic producer, and 

foreign producer members of the Board 

will be three years, and these members 

may serve a maximum of two 

consecutive three-year terms. When the 

Board is first established, the first 

handler, two importers, one domestic 

producer, and two foreign producers 

will be assigned initial terms of four 

years; three importers, one domestic 

producer, and two foreign producers 

will be assigned initial terms of three 

years; and three importers and three 

foreign producers will be assigned 

initial terms of two years. Thereafter, 

each of these positions will carry a full 

three-year term. Members serving initial 

terms of two or four years will be 

eligible to serve a second term of three 

years. Each term of office will end on 

December 31, with new terms of office 

beginning on January 1. 

Dated: March 4, 2011. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5715 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Chapter 1 

[Docket No.: SBA–2011–0012] 

Reducing Regulatory Burden; 

Retrospective Review Under Executive 

Order 13563 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: As part of its implementation 

of Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) is 

seeking comments and information from 

interested parties to assist the agency in 

reviewing its existing regulations to 

determine whether they should be 

streamlined, expanded, or withdrawn. 

The primary objectives of this review 

are to make SBA’s regulatory program 

more cost effective and less burdensome 

on participants in the Agency’s 

programs while continuing to promote 

economic growth, innovation, and job 

creation. SBA seeks public input on the 

design of a plan to use for periodic 

retrospective review of its regulations 

and an initial list of the rules to be 

reviewed under the plan. 

DATES: Comments are requested on or 

before April 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket Number SBA– 

2011–0012 using any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Identify 

comments by ‘‘Docket Number SBA– 

2011–0012, Regulatory Burden RFI,’’ 

and follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

Mail: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Office of the General 

Counsel, 409 Third Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20416. 

SBA will post comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at http://www.regulations.gov, 

please submit the information to Martin 

S. Conrey, Assistant General Counsel for 

Legislation and Appropriations, Office 

of General Counsel, 409 Third Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20416. Highlight 

the information that you consider to be 

CBI, and explain why you believe this 

information should be held confidential. 

SBA will review the information and 

make the final determination of whether 

it will publish the information or not. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin S. Conrey, Assistant General 

Counsel for Legislation and 

Appropriations, Office of the General 

Counsel, 409 Third Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20416; telephone 

number: 202–619–0638; fax number: 

202–205–6846; e-mail address: 

martin.conrey@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

The mission of the Small Business 

Administration is to maintain and 

strengthen the Nation’s economy by 

enabling the establishment and viability 

of small businesses, and by assisting in 

economic recovery of communities after 

disasters. In carrying out this mission, 

SBA has developed a regulatory policy 

that is implemented primarily through 

several core program offices: Office of 

Capital Access, Office of Disaster 

Assistance, Office of Entrepreneurial 

Development, Office of Government 

Contracting and Business Development, 

Office of International Trade, and Office 

of Investment and Innovation. SBA’s 

regulations are codified at Title 13 Code 

of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, and 

consist of Parts 100 through 147. 

II. Executive Order 13563 

On January 18, 2011, the President 

issued Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ that requires Federal agencies 

to seek more affordable, less intrusive 

means to achieve policy goals, and to 

give careful consideration to the benefits 

and costs of their regulations. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to review existing rules to remove 

outdated regulations that stifle job 

creation and make the U.S. economy 

less competitive. Agencies are directed 

to develop a preliminary plan under 

which they will periodically review 

existing regulations to determine which 

should be maintained, modified, 

strengthened, or withdrawn in order to 

increase their effectiveness and decrease 

the burdens of the agency’s regulatory 

program. 

III. Retrospective Review Plan 

In compliance with the executive 

order, SBA seeks help in designing the 

plan it will use for the periodic review 

of its existing regulations and an initial 

list of candidate rules for review. The 

Agency’s goal is to create a systematic 

method for identifying those significant 

rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, 

unjustified, or counterproductive. The 

public is first asked to comment on how 

SBA should devise its preliminary plan, 

with a defined method and schedule, for 

identifying certain significant rules that 

may be obsolete, unnecessary, 

unjustified, excessively burdensome, or 

counterproductive. It would be helpful 

for comments to address how SBA 

could best evaluate and analyze 

regulations in order to expand on those 

that work and to modify, improve, or 

rescind those that do not. Comments 

might address how SBA 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 SBA can 

use to evaluate the post-promulgation 

effects of regulations over time. SBA is 

particularly interested in the public’s 

views about how well its current 

processes for reviewing regulations 

function and how those processes might 

be expanded or otherwise adapted to 

meet the objectives of Executive Order 

13563. SBA is also interested in 

comments about factors that we should 

consider in setting priorities and 

selecting rules for review. 

SBA intends for its preliminary plan 

to include an initial list of candidate 

rules to review. SBA solicits suggestions 

for specific rules that should be on the 

list. In suggesting rules for review, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13533 

commenters might usefully address, 

among other things, how SBA can use 

the retrospective review process to 

achieve the following objectives: (1) 

Promote economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation; (2) 

eliminate outdated regulations; (3) 

lessen the burdens imposed on those 

directly or indirectly affected by our 

regulations, particularly small entities; 

(4) increase the benefits provided to the 

public by our regulations, and improve 

the cost-benefit balance of our 

regulations; (5) eliminate duplicative or 

overlapping regulations; (6) reduce 

paperwork by eliminating duplication, 

lessening frequency, allowing electronic 

submission, standardizing forms, 

exempting small entities, or other 

means; (7) eliminate conflicts and 

inconsistencies in SBA’s regulations; (8) 

simplify or clarify language in 

regulations; (9) revise regulations to 

address changes in technology, 

economic conditions, or other factors; 

(10) determine if matters in an existing 

regulation could be better handled fully 

by trade organizations or participants 

without Federal regulations; (11) reduce 

burdens by incorporating industry 

consensus standards into regulations; 

(12) reconsider regulations that were 

based on scientific or other information 

that has been discredited or superseded; 

and (13) expand regulations that are 

insufficient to address their intended 

objective or obtain additional benefits. 

Comments should focus on 

regulations that have demonstrated 

deficiencies. Comments that rehash 

debates over recently issued rules will 

be less useful. The public should focus 

on rule changes that will achieve a 

broad public impact, rather than an 

individual, personal or corporate 

benefit. Where feasible, comments 

should reference a specific regulation, 

by Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

citation, and provide SBA information 

on what needs fixing and why. 

Comments do not necessarily have to 

address how to fix the perceived 

problem, though such comments are 

welcome. Lastly, we also want to stress 

that this review is for existing rules; the 

public should not use this process to 

submit comments on proposed rules. 

With these factors in mind, SBA is 

contemplating focusing its retrospective 

review on the rules that govern the 

following programs: Small Business 

Investment Companies (Part 107); 

Surety Bond Guarantee (Part 115); 

Business Loans (Part 120); Disaster 

Loans (Part 123); Government 

Contracting (Part 125); and HUBZone 

(Part 126). 

SBA has just completed a 

comprehensive review of the regulations 

for the 8(a) Business Development/ 

Small Disadvantaged Business program 

(Part 124) pursuant to section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq. The final rule reflects an 

extensive public participation process, 

including a lengthy notice and comment 

period, several public hearings in 

diverse areas of the country, and 

consultations with various groups. See, 

76 FR 8221 (Feb. 11, 2011). SBA is 

currently conducting a similar review of 

its size regulations (Part 121) and will 

be soliciting specific comments on those 

regulations as they are developed and 

published in the Federal Register. In 

light of these comprehensive reviews, 

pursuant to the requirements of section 

610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

SBA does not intend to include these 

two sets of regulations in the 

retrospective review under Executive 

Order 13563. 

IV. Request for Information 

Consistent with the Agency’s 

commitment to public participation in 

the rulemaking process, SBA is issuing 

this Request for Information (RFI) to 

solicit views from the public on how 

best to design a plan to conduct its 

retrospective analysis of existing SBA 

rules, and identify those rules that 

should be included in the plan for 

possible modification, streamlining, 

expansion or repeal. While SBA 

promulgates rules in accordance with 

the law and to the best of its capability, 

it is difficult to be certain of the 

consequences of a rule, including its 

costs and benefits, until it has been 

tested. Therefore, SBA invites interested 

parties to submit data that documents 

the costs, burdens, and benefits of 

existing regulations. The Agency 

believes that members of the public are 

likely to have useful information and 

perspectives on the benefits and 

burdens of existing regulations, and can 

assist SBA in identifying and 

prioritizing those rules that are most in 

need of review. 

SBA is accepting your comments from 

now through April 1, 2011. Although 

the Agency will not be able to respond 

to every individual comment, your 

input is valued and your ideas merit 

careful consideration. By late May or 

early June, you will have the 

opportunity to review SBA’s 

retrospective review plan on our Open 

Government webpage, http://sba.gov/ 

opengovernment, as well as an initial 

list of regulations that we plan to review 

first. 

As you comment, SBA requests that 

you keep these key considerations in 

mind: 

• SBA must uphold its mission to 

strengthen America’s economy by 

providing tools to help grow businesses, 

create jobs, and help victims recover 

from disasters. 

• SBA’s plan will be tailored to 

reflect its resources, rulemaking history, 

and volume. 

• A number of laws or executive 

orders already direct the Agency to 

regularly review certain regulations. 

Your input is requested on developing 

a plan that is integrated with those 

existing requirements. 

V. List of Questions for Commenters 

The list of questions below is 

designed to identify issues that might 

arise in the development of a 

preliminary plan for the retrospective 

analysis of the agency’s regulations. 

This non-exhaustive list is meant to 

assist in the formulation of public 

comments and is not intended to restrict 

the issues that may be addressed. SBA 

requests that commenters identify the 

specific regulation at issue and explain, 

in as much detail as possible, why the 

regulation should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or withdrawn, 

as well as specific suggestions of ways 

SBA can better achieve its regulatory 

objectives. 

(1) How can SBA 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 unnecessary, or ineffective, and, 

if so, what are they? 

(4) Are there rules that can be 

withdrawn without impairing SBA’s 

regulatory programs and, if so, what are 

they? 

(5) Are there rules that have become 

outdated and, if so, how can they be 

modernized to better accomplish their 

regulatory objectives? 

(6) Are there rules that are still 

necessary, but which have not operated 

as well as expected such that a 

modified, stronger, or slightly different 

approach is justified? 

(7) Are there regulations, or regulatory 

processes that are unnecessarily 

complicated or could be streamlined to 

achieve regulatory objectives more 

efficiently? 

(8) Are there any technological 

developments that can be leveraged to 

modify, streamline, or repeal any 

existing regulatory requirements? 

(9) Are there any SBA regulations that 

are not tailored to impose the least 

burden on the public? 

(10) How can SBA best obtain and 

consider accurate, objective information 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and data about the costs, burdens, and 

benefits of existing regulations? 

(11) Are there existing sources of data 

SBA can use to evaluate the postpromulgation effects of regulations over 

time? 

(12) Are there regulations that are 

working well that can be expanded or 

used as a model to fill gaps in other SBA 

regulatory programs? 

SBA notes that this RFI is issued 

solely for information and planning 

purposes and that the Agency is not 

bound to any further actions related to 

the comments submitted. All 

submissions will be made publically 

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

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 (e.g. your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 5(b)(6). 

Dated: March 8, 2011. 

Sara D. Lipscomb, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5839 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0158; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–118–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200, –300, –300F, 

and –400ER Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to certain 

Model 767–200, -300, -300F, and -400ER 

series airplanes. The existing AD 

currently requires an inspection to 

determine if certain motor operated 

valve actuators for the fuel tanks are 

installed, and related investigative and 

corrective actions if necessary. This 

proposed AD would add airplanes and, 

for certain airplanes, require additional 

inspections to determine if certain 

motor operated valve actuators for the 

fuel tanks are installed, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD results 

from fuel system reviews conducted by 

the manufacturer. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent an ignition source inside 

the fuel tanks, which, in combination 

with flammable fuel vapors, could result 

in a fuel tank explosion and consequent 

loss of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

425–917–6505; fax 425–917–6590; email douglas.n.bryant@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0158; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–118–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On October 19, 2009, we issued AD 

2009–22–13, amendment 39–16066 (74 

FR 55755, October 29, 2009), for certain 

Boeing Model 767–200, –300, –300F, 

and –400ER series airplanes. That AD 

requires an inspection to determine if 

certain motor operated valve (MOV) 

actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, 

and related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. That AD resulted 

from fuel system reviews conducted by 

the manufacturer. We issued that AD to 

prevent an ignition source inside the 

fuel tanks, which, in combination with 

flammable fuel vapors, could result in a 

fuel tank explosion and consequent loss 

of the airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2009–22–13, 

Boeing issued a revision to Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–28A0090, dated 

July 3, 2008 (which was referenced as a 

source of service information in AD 

2009–22–13). Boeing Service Bulletin 

767–28A0090, Revision 2, dated 

September 2, 2010, corrects the group 

configuration assignment for certain 

airplanes, adds airplanes to the 

effectivity, and adds additional work for 

certain airplanes that accomplished 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

28A0090, dated July 3, 2008; or Boeing 

Service Bulletin 767–28A0090, Revision 

1, dated April 1, 2010. The actions 

described in Boeing Service Bulletin 

767–28A0090, Revision 2, dated 

September 2, 2010, are similar to those 

described in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 767–28A0090, dated July 3, 

2008. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1