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

47328 

Vol. 77, No. 153 

Wednesday, August 8, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

5 CFR Chapter XXII 

10 CFR Chapters II, III, X 

Reducing Regulatory Burden 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Energy. 

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 Energy 

(Department or DOE) is seeking 

comments and information from 

interested parties to assist DOE in 

reviewing its existing regulations to 

determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed. The purpose of 

DOE’s review is to make the agency’s 

regulatory program more effective and 

less burdensome in achieving its 

regulatory objectives. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

September 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘Regulatory Burden RFI,’’ 

by any of the following methods: 

White House Web site: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/advise. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Email: 

Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov. Include 

‘‘Regulatory Burden RFI’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

Mail: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of the General Counsel, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 

6A245, Washington, DC 20585. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

That Department’s plan for 

retrospective review of its regulations 

and its January 2012 and May 2012 

update reports can be accessed at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

21stcenturygov/actions/21st-centuryregulatory-system. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Cohen, Assistant General 

Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and 

Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Email: 

Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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, 

consistent with applicable law, 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 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, agencies 

were required to develop a 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. 

DOE’s plan and its January 2012 and 

May 2012 update reports can be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

21stcenturygov/actions/21st-centuryregulatory-system. 

The Department is committed to 

maintaining a consistent culture of 

retrospective review and analysis. DOE 

will continually engage in review of its 

rules to determine whether there are 

burdens on the public that can be 

avoided by amending or rescinding 

existing requirements. To that end, DOE 

is publishing today’s RFI to again 

explicitly solicit public input. In 

addition, DOE is always open to 

receiving information about the impact 

of its regulations. To facilitate both this 

RFI and the ongoing submission of 

comments, interested parties can 

identify regulations that may be in need 

of review at the following recently 

established White House Web site: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/advise. DOE 

has also created a link on the Web page 

of DOE’s Office of the General Counsel 

to an email in-box for the submission of 

comments, 

Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov. 

While the Department promulgates 

rules in accordance with the law and to 

the best of its analytic capability, it is 

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 is 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 step in 

DOE’s review of its existing regulations. 

List of Questions for Commenters 

The following list of questions is 

intended to assist in the formulation of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47329 

comments and not to restrict the issues 

that may be addressed. In addressing 

these questions or others, DOE requests 

that commenters identify with 

specificity the regulation or reporting 

requirement at issue, providing legal 

citation where available. The 

Department also requests that the 

submitter provide, in as much detail as 

possible, an explanation why a 

regulation or reporting requirement 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed, as well as 

specific suggestions of ways the 

Department can better achieve its 

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 and reporting requirements for 

review? 

(3) Are there regulations that are 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 or reporting 

requirements 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, reporting 

requirements, or regulatory processes 

that are unnecessarily complicated or 

could be streamlined to achieve 

regulatory objectives in more efficient 

ways? 

(8) Are there rules or reporting 

requirements that have been overtaken 

by technological developments? Can 

new technologies be leveraged to 

modify, streamline, or do away with 

existing regulatory or reporting 

requirements? 

(9) 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? We invite 

interested parties to provide data that 

may be in their possession that 

documents the costs, burdens, and 

benefits of existing requirements. 

(10) Are there regulations that are 

working well that can be expanded or 

used as a model to fill gaps in other 

DOE regulatory programs? 

The Department notes that this RFI is 

issued solely for information and 

program-planning purposes. Responses 

to this RFI do not bind DOE to any 

further actions related to the response. 

All submissions will be made publically 

available on. http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 2, 

2012. 

Gregory H. Woods, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19392 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0805; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–117–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; rescission. 

SUMMARY: We propose to rescind an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain The Boeing 

Company 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. 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. Since we issued that AD, we 

have received new data indicating that 

the existing AD addresses that safety 

concern, but also introduces a different 

unsafe condition. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 24, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to the Mail 

address above 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, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; 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 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6509; 

fax: (425) 917–6590; email: Rebel.

Nichols@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–2012–0805; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–117–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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS