Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15891 

Clarity of This Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Drafting Information 

The primary authors of this regulation 

were Stephen Prokop, former Chief 

Ranger CACO; Bob Grant, Chief Ranger 

CACO; Carrie Phillips, former Chief of 

Resources Management, CACO; Robin 

Lepore, Office of the Regional Solicitor, 

Department of the Interior; Philip A. 

Selleck, Associate Regional Director, 

Operations and Education, National 

Park Service, National Capital Region; 

Russel J. Wilson, Chief Regulations and 

Special Park Uses, National Park 

Service, Washington, DC; and A.J. 

North, Regulations Coordinator, 

National Park Service, Washington, DC. 

Public Participation 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 

National Parks, Hunting, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the National Park Service 

proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as 

follows: 

PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, 

AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM 

1. The authority citation for Part 7 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k); Sec. 

7.96 also issued under 36 U.S.C. 501–511, DC 

Code 10–137 (2001) and DC Code 50–2201 

(2001). 

2. In § 7.67 revise paragraph (f) to read 

as follows: 

§ 7.67 Cape Cod National Seashore. 

* * * * * 

(f) Hunting. (1) Hunting is allowed at 

times and locations designated by the 

Superintendent as open to hunting. 

(2) Except as otherwise provided in 

this section, hunting is permitted in 

accordance with § 2.2 of this chapter. 

(3) Only deer, upland game (including 

Eastern Wild Turkey), and migratory 

waterfowl may be hunted. 

(4) Hunting is prohibited from March 

1st through August 31st each year, 

except for the taking of Eastern Wild 

Turkey as designated by the 

superintendent. 

(5) The superintendent may: 

(i) Require permits and establish 

conditions for hunting. 

(ii) Temporarily limit, restrict, or 

terminate hunting access or activities 

after taking into consideration public 

health and safety, natural and cultural 

resource protection, and other 

management activities and objectives, 

such as those described in the Cape Cod 

National Seashore Hunting Program/ 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

(6) The public will be notified of such 

closures through one or more methods 

listed in § 1.7(a) of this chapter. 

(7) Violating a closure, designation, 

use or activity restriction or a term or 

condition of a permit is prohibited. 

Violating a term or condition of a permit 

may also result in the suspension or 

revocation of the permit by the 

superintendent. 

Dated: March 14, 2011. 

Will Shafroth, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6703 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–WV–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Chapter I 

[Docket No. PTO–C–2011–0017] 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’ or ‘‘Office’’) 

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 this regulatory 

review is to determine whether any of 

these regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed in 

order to make the Office’s regulatory 

program more effective and less 

burdensome. More effective and less 

burdensome regulations will help the 

Office in its mission to foster innovation 

and competitiveness through providing 

high quality and timely examination of 

patent and trademark applications, 

guiding domestic and international 

intellectual property policy, and 

delivering intellectual property 

information and education worldwide. 

The Office is asking the public to 

provide ideas and information about 

preparing such a review plan and to 

help the Office identify which 

regulations should be reviewed. 

DATES: You must submit any comments 

on or before April 21, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically by e-mailing them 

directly to the Office at regulatory_

review_comments@uspto.gov. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

mail addressed to: Office of the General 

Counsel, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, marked to 

the attention of Nicolas Oettinger. 

Although comments may be submitted 

by mail, the Office prefers to receive 

comments via the Internet. Comments 

may also be submitted through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Additional 

instructions on providing comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

are available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

submitted directly to the Office or 

provided on the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal should include the docket 

number (PTO–P–2011–0017). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15892 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

All comments will be available for 

public inspection upon request at the 

Office of the Commissioner for Patents, 

located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 

600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 

and will be available on the USPTO 

Web site at http://www.uspto.gov. All 

comments submitted through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal will be 

made publicly available on that Web 

site. Because comments will be made 

available for public inspection, 

information that the submitter does not 

desire to make public, such as an 

address or phone number, should not be 

included in the comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicolas Oettinger, Office of the General 

Counsel, by telephone at 571–272–7832, 

by e-mail at 

nicolas.oettinger@uspto.gov, or by mail 

addressed to Mail Stop Comments— 

Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. 

Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, 

marked to the attention of Nicolas 

Oettinger. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On January 18, 2011, President 

Obama issued Executive Order 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review. In the Executive Order, the 

President stated: 

Our regulatory system must protect public 

health, welfare, safety, and our environment 

while promoting economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness, and job 

creation. It must be based on the best 

available science. It must allow for public 

participation and an open exchange of ideas. 

It must promote predictability and reduce 

uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, 

most innovative, and least burdensome tools 

for achieving regulatory ends. It must take 

into account benefits and costs, both 

quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure 

that regulations are accessible, consistent, 

written in plain language, and easy to 

understand. It must measure, and seek to 

improve, the actual results of regulatory 

requirements. 

E.O. 13563, 76 FR 3281, at Section 1(a). 

The Executive Order directed agencies 

to develop and submit, within 120 days, 

preliminary plans for reviewing their 

existing ‘‘significant regulations’’ (as that 

term is defined in Executive Order 

12866) and determining whether and 

how such regulations could be made 

more effective and less burdensome. 

The Executive Order also directed 

agencies to provide the public with an 

opportunity to participate in the 

regulatory process and to provide 

comments on the development of such 

a plan, and further directed that timely 

on-line access to the rule making docket 

be provided so that the public had the 

opportunity to comment on all pertinent 

parts of the rule making docket. 

As the Office begins work on a 

preliminary plan for reviewing its 

existing significant regulations, it is 

requesting that the public participate in 

that process. The Office is asking the 

public to provide comments on how 

such a plan should be developed, what 

such a plan should include, which 

significant regulations should be 

reviewed, and how those regulations 

might be improved. The Office 

recognizes that the intellectual property 

community and the public in general 

will have useful information and 

opinions about how USPTO regulations 

can be reviewed and improved in order 

to best achieve its mission of promoting 

innovation and competition. This 

request for comments will help the 

Office gather information that will 

inform its decisions about developing a 

plan for reviewing the Office’s existing 

significant regulations. 

The Office welcomes any comments 

that you think might be helpful in 

developing a plan for reviewing 

significant USPTO regulations. Some 

questions that may be helpful to 

consider in preparing such comments 

include: 

1. What is the best way for the Office 

to identify which of its significant 

regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed? 

What process should the Office use to 

select rules for review and how should 

it prioritize such review? 

2. What can the Office, relative to its 

regulation process, do to reduce burdens 

and maintain flexibility for the public 

while promoting its missions? 

3. How can the Office ensure that its 

significant regulations promote 

innovation and competition in the most 

effective and least burdensome way? 

How can these Office regulations be 

improved to accomplish this? 

4. Are there USPTO regulations that 

conflict with, or are duplicative of, 

regulations from other agencies? If so, 

please identify any such rules and 

provide any suggestions you might have 

for how this conflict or duplication can 

be resolved in order to help the Office 

achieve its mission more effectively. 

5. How can the Office best encourage 

public participation in its rule making 

process? How can the Office best 

provide a forum for the open exchange 

of ideas among the Office, the 

intellectual property community, and 

the public in general? 

These questions are not intended to be 

an exhaustive list of topics for public 

comment. While the Office welcomes 

and values all comments from the 

public in response to this request, these 

comments do not bind the Office to any 

further actions related to the comments, 

and the Office may not respond to every 

comment that is submitted. 

Dated: March 15, 2011. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6660 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0055–201107; FRL– 

9285–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Georgia: Macon; 

Determination of Attaining Data for the 

1997 Annual Fine Particulate 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Macon, Georgia, fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Macon 

Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) has attained the 

1997 annual average PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The Macon Area is 

comprised of Bibb County in its entirety 

and a portion of Monroe County. This 

proposed determination of attainment is 

based upon complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data for the 2007–2009 period showing 

that the Area has monitored attainment 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If 

EPA finalizes this proposed 

determination of attainment, the 

requirements for the Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), a reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

related to attainment of the standard 

shall be suspended so long as the Area 

continues to attain the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 21, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0055, by one of the 

following methods: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS